Danos v. Rittger
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision. The 10 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton (Tex. App. 2015)
- Simmons v. TEXOMA MEDICAL CENTER (Tex. App. 2010)
- Karen Scruggs Simmons, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Brandon Scruggs v. Texoma Medical Center (Tex. App. 2010)
- UHS of Timberlawn, Inc. v. S.B. Ex Rel. A.B. (Tex. App. 2009)
- Rittger v. Danos (Tex. App. 2009)
- Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation (Tex. App. 2015)
- Baylor College of Medicine v. Pokluda (Tex. App. 2009)
- Kevin Rittger, M.D. v. Lou Virgina Danos (Tex. App. 2009)
- Baylor College of Medicine v. Bernadette Pokluda (Tex. App. 2009)
- Maris v. Hendricks (Tex. App. 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Virginia Danos filed this suit claiming an emergency room physician, Dr. Kevin Ritt-ger, was negligent in failing to diagnose a left-middle cerebral artery stroke. As required by statute, within 120 days of filing Danos served the curriculum vita and expert reports of Dr. Dave David and Dr. Frank Baker. 1 Dr. Rittger moved for dismissal and attorney’s fees on the ground that Dr. Baker’s report was inadequate. 2 The trial court ruled that the report was deficient and gave Danos thirty days to cure the deficiency. 3 Within thirty days, Danos filed a new report from Dr. Baker and filed a report from John Meyer, M.D., a neurological expert not previously designated. The defendants once again timely moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding Dr. Baker’s report inadequate and ruling that Danos could not file a report from a new expert. The court of appeals affirmed. 4
For the reasons stated today in Lewis v. Funderburk, 5 we hold that the statute allows a claimant to cure a deficiency and that requirement may be satisfied by serving a report from a separate expert. The court of appeals erred by concluding otherwise.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and without hearing oral argument, TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, we reverse *216 the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court to consider the adequacy of Dr. Meyer’s expert report.
. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 74.351(a).
. See id. § 74.351(b).
. See id. § 74.351(c).
. 253 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2008).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.