Application of Expert Report Requirements.
Does section 74.531 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, which requires the production of an expert report in the early stages of a healthcare liability claim, apply to the claims against a water park with respect to the placement of a defibrillator and the device’s use by its employees and to claims that the park’s medical advisor was negligent in failing to provide certain advice and recommendations to the water park concerning the defibrillator? Yamada v. Friend, No. 08 0262, formerly 2008 WL 5583690 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008), review granted 02/13/09.

Attorney’s Fees.
Was physician entitled to award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, permitting an award of fees incurred by the physician in a case where the claimant fails to provide a timely expert report, where the physician’s attorney did not testify regarding the reasonableness of the requested fee? Garcia v. Gomez, No. 09 0139, formerly 286 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008), review granted 10/23/09.

Constitutionality of Limitations Provision.
Does the two-year statute of limitations for healthcare liability claims in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.251 violate the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution in a case involving a sponge left in a surgical patient? Walters v. Cleveland Regional Med. Center, No. 08 0169, formerly 264 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007), review granted 03/27/09.

Constitutionality of Statute of Repose.
Is the two-year statute of repose applicable to health care claims under Tex. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.051(b) violate the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution? Methodist Health Care System of San Antonio v. Rankin, No. 08 0316, formerly 261 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008), review granted 03/27/09.

Expert Reports, Extension of Time.
Was patient entitled to an extension of time to cure deficiency in an expert’s report that failed to state a causal link between the physician’s alleged breaches of duty and the patient’s injury? Samlowski v. Wooten, No. 08 0667, formerly 282 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008), review granted 06/19/09.

Does the “relation back” doctrine apply to save claims against Health Science Center first asserted in an amended pleading where original pleading had only the named physician, who was an employee of the center? University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Bailey, No. 08 0419, formerly 261 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008), review granted 06/26/09.