Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. App. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. App. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Margaret Reid v. Seton Hospital, Dr. Michael Breen and Dr. Ann Czarnik (texapp, 2016-09-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Margaret Reid v. Seton Hospital, Dr. Michael Breen and Dr. Ann Czarnik
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Spectrum Healthcare Res. v. McDaniel, 306 S.W.3d 249 , 254 & n.5 (Tex. 2010) (holding that for an agreed order or written agreement to extend the section 74.351 threshold expert report deadline, the order “must explicitly indicate the parties’ intention to extend the deadline and reference that specific deadline” to be effective); Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dall. 2007, no pet.) (scheduling order that did not address expert report deadline did not extend expert report deadline).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hal Crews and Debra Leitch v. DkASI Corporation, Debra H. Holley, David Holley and ASI Gymnastics, Inc.
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.―Dallas 2007, pet. denied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Mario Duran and Maria Duran (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Co., 241 S.W. 136, 140 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1922, judgm't adopted) 10 Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.) 35 Bubba's of San Antonio v. Leyendecker Const., Inc., 2010 WL 2403717 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2010, no pet.) 16 Cantu v. Butron, 921 S.W.2d 344, 349 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied) 33 Cantu v. Horany, 195 S.W.3d 867, 871 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2006, no pet.) 11 Cardenas v. Continental Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spectrum Healthcare Resources, Inc. v. McDaniel (2×)
Tex. · 2010 · confidence medium
LEXIS 2743, at *6-* 12 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Apr. 17, 2008, pet. filed) (mem.op.); King v. Cirillo, 233 S.W.3d 437, 440-41 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. filed); Lal v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth, 230 S.W.3d 468, 474-76 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.); Rugama v. Escobar, No. 04-05-00764-CV, 2006 WL 923701 , at *2-3, 2006 Tex.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) texapp 2009
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Id. , Brock v. Sutker , 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App. C Dallas 2007, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Care Center, Ltd. v. Betty Sutton
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Lal , 230 S.W.3d at 474 (scheduling order did not extend section 74.351's deadline, but instead was intended to control deadlines under the Rules of Civil Procedure); Brock v. Sutker , 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) (scheduling order did not extend the statutory deadline when it did not mention section 74.351, and nothing in the order suggested the parties agreed to extend the statutory deadline).
cited Cited as authority (rule) King v. Cirillo
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.); Park, 194 S.W.3d at 98 .
discussed Cited "see" Edaisy Chapa v. Ernesto Arellano and Maria Arellano
Tex. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Izen v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 322 S.W.3d 308, 322 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied); see Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (concluding issue was waived when brief made no attempt to analyze the trial court’s order within the context of cited authority).
discussed Cited "see" Lauro De Leon v. Sandra Hernandez
Tex. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Blankinship v. Brown, 399 S.W. 3d 303, 307 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2013, pet. denied); see Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding issue is waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court’s order within context of cited authority).
cited Cited "see" Syrian-American Oil Corporation S.A. v. Syria Shell Petroleum Development BV
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brock v. Sutker , 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding issue is waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court’s order within context of cited authority).
discussed Cited "see" Izen v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline (2×)
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding issue is waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court’s order within context of cited authority).
cited Cited "see" Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brock v. Sutker , 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding issue is waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court's order within context of cited authority).
discussed Cited "see" Romelle Peoples v. Genco Federal Credit Union and McDonald Recovery Service, Inc. (2×)
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding that issue is waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court’s order within context of cited authority).
discussed Cited "see" texapp 2009 (2×)
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brock v. Sutker , 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding that issue is waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court's order within context of cited authority); see also Bradt v. West , 892 S.W.2d 56, 69 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (holding fact that brief contains authorities on conspiracy is not alone sufficient to comprise "argument" necessary to keep from waiving cause of action on appeal, as both authorities and argument are required).
discussed Cited "see" Stuart Guillot v. Debra Guillot
Tex. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brock v. Sutker , 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding issue waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court’s order within context of cited authority); see also Bradt v. West , 892 S.W.2d 56, 69 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (holding fact that brief contains authorities on conspiracy is not alone sufficient to comprise “argument” necessary to keep from waiving cause of action on appeal as both authorities and argument are required).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Robert Phalen v. Wayne Kirk
Tex. App. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
P. 38.1(i); see, e.g., Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jon A. Marshall v. Harris County Municipal Utility District 358
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
App. P. 38.1(i); Woodside v. Woodside , 154 S.W.3d 688, 691 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.) (holding issue waived when only authorities cited were “a few irrelevant cases and statutes”)); see also Brock v. Sutker , 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding issue is waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court’s purported error within context of cited authority) . 4.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McDaniel v. Spectrum Healthcare Resources, Inc. (2×)
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Brock v. Sutker, 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) (scheduling order requiring plaintiff provide report from any retained expert did not extend section 74.351 expert report deadline); Hall v. Mieler, 177 S.W.3d 278, 282 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (docket control order did not extend the 4590i expert report deadlines and Hall’s failure to file the report did not constitute a mistake or accident).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Howard Vanzandt Williams v. Tdcj-Id
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See id. ; see also Brock v. Sutker , 215 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding issue waived by brief that makes no attempt to analyze trial court's order within context of cited authority).
Robert BROCK, Appellant
v.
Alan SUTKER, M.D., Appellee
05-05-01540-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Mar 8, 2007.
215 S.W.3d 927
Jeffrey Warren Hitt, Attorney At Law, Houston, for Appellant., Peter H. Anderson, David M. Walsh, IV, Chamblee & Ryan, P.C., Dallas, for Appel-lee.
Fitzgerald, Richter, Francis.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

Opinion by

Justice FRANCIS.

Robert Brock appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his medical malpractice lawsuit against Alan Sutker, M.D., for failing to provide an expert report. In a single point of error, he argues an agreed scheduling order extended the time for filing the report. We affirm.

On May 4, 2005, Brock sued Dr. Sutker for treatment he received to his arm. Some 131 days later, on September 12, Dr. Sutker filed a motion to dismiss the suit because Brock had not filed an expert report within 120 days as required in health care liability claims. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp.2006). In response, Brock asserted that the parties entered into an agreed scheduling order that extended the deadline “for [p]laintiff to designate his experts and produce reports” until January 13, 2006. He contended this agreement included the expert report required by chapter 74. After a hearing, the trial court signed an order dismissing the lawsuit and ordering Brock to pay Dr. Sutker’s attorney’s fees and court costs. Brock appealed.

We review a trial court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit for failure to file an expert report for an abuse of discretion. Park v. Lynch, 194 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Tex.[*929] App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Id.

In three sentences, Brock contends the agreed scheduling order was “a written agreement of the affected parties” that extended the 120-day deadline. As legal support for his contention, he cites only section 74.351(a), but makes no attempt to analyze the order within the context of the statute or case law. Under these circumstances, we conclude the issue is inadequately briefed. See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(h).

Even assuming his issue is not waived, it is without merit. Brock does not direct this Court to any specific portion of the scheduling order to support his position; however, only one provision would appear to apply:

On or before January 13, 2006, Plaintiff shall serve all attorneys of record with his written designation and opinions of expert witnesses expected to testify at trial of this cause in the form of supplemental answers to written discovery, and included in such designation shall be a report from any retained experts.

Considering this provision within the context of the order and the record as a whole, we conclude it does not contemplate expert reports filed for purposes of section 74.351.

On June 25, 2005, Dr. Sutker filed a motion for continuance of the January 2006 trial setting and motion for Level III Scheduling Order. In the motion, Dr. Sut-ker explained that the chapter 74 expert report was not due until September 1 and he could not begin discovery until the report was filed. Dr. Sutker asserted that fact discovery could take two to three months with discovery of experts to follow. He asked the court to reset the trial twelve to fifteen months from the time the case was filed to “provide both parties the opportunity to conduct the necessary fact and expert discovery.”

The order that followed is an “Agreed Level III Pre-Trial Scheduling Order Moving and Resetting the Trial Date.” The order set deadlines for the plaintiff and defendant to designate testifying experts, including the reports from retained experts; written discovery and depositions; Daubert or dispositive objections or motions; filing of amended or supplemental pleadings; pretrial motions, special exceptions, pageAine designations of videotaped depositions and any objections thereto; pretrial conference; and mediation. The order removed the case from the January 2006 trial docket and reset the case for jury trial in June 2006, thirteen months after the case was filed. Importantly, the order does not mention section 74.351, and nothing in the order suggests the parties agreed to extend any deadline set by that statute. See Olveda v. Sepulveda, 141 S.W.3d 679, 683 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004) (concluding docket control order setting deadline for designating experts and providing retained experts’ reports did not include expert reports under Texas Medical and Insurance Improvement Act), pet. denied, 189 S.W.3d 740 (Tex.2006). In short, the order was nothing more than the discovery control plan required by the rules of civil procedure. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 190.4.

Because Brock failed to serve an expert report as required by statute, the trial court had no discretion but to dismiss his claims with prejudice and award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to Dr. Sut-ker. See Tex. Civ. Pkac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(b)(1),- (2) (Vernon Supp.2006).

We overrule the sole point of error.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.