In Beckwith v. White, 285 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. App.--Houston 1st Dist. 2009, no pet.), the plaintiff timely served the defendant physician with two expert reports. Six months later, the defendant objected to the sufficiency of one of the reports on the ground that the expert was not a physician and was therefore not qualified to render an expert opinion. In response to the plaintiff's argument that the objection was waived, the defendant argued that the objection "does not go to the sufficiency of the report; rather, that the expert's status as a non-physician is per se fatal to whether the plaintiff satisfied her initial burden to serve an expert report." Id. at 63. In other words, the defendant argued that because the expert was not a physician, "his report is the legal equivalent of 'no report' under section 74.351." Id. at 62. The Court rejected that argument and held that the defendant was required to object to the expert's qualifications within 21 days of receiving the expert's CV. Id. at 63.