In Comstock v. Clark, No. 09-07-300-CV, 2007 WL 3101992 (Tex. App.--Beaumont Oct. 25, 2007, pet. denied) Megan Comstock was given an overdose of sedation medication during a procedure to extract her wisdom teeth and she suffered permanent brain damage as a result.
Dr. Orr, an anesthesiologist, wrote an expert report on causation on behalf of the plaintiffs.
In preparing his report, Dr. Orr reviewed the medical records pertaining to the alleged negligence and spoke with Megan's mother--who was one of the plaintiffs--regarding the events surrounding the procedure and her present condition.
The court concluded that Dr. Orr's report sufficiently linked the facts to the healthcare providers' breach of the applicable standards of care. Id.
In a footnote, the court acknowledged the difference between an expert report's sufficiency for purposes of chapter 74 and admissibility at trial, stating:
"We do not imply or suggest that an expert report's sufficiency for purposes of Chapter 74 . . . immunizes the report from a challenge that it is not sufficiently reliable to be admitted before the trier of fact. That type of challenge generally carries with it a more developed record than is before us here in this preliminary proceeding." Id. at n.1.