Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Finley v. Steenkamp – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Finley v. Steenkamp, 19 S.W.3d 533, 539 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2000, no pet.), the plaintiff argued that his failure to comply with the expert report requirement was not due to conscious indifference nor was it intentional. Finley, 19 S.W.3d at 537-38.

Finley contended his failure to comply was the result of a mistake or accident because he believed the trial court's scheduling order set the deadline for designating his experts and for filing his expert report. Id. The trial court dismissed his suit with prejudice. Id. at 537.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's scheduling order did not designate a date to provide expert reports, as Finley had argued. Id. at 539.

Rather, the order explicitly required Finley to provide the name, address, and topic for each of his expert witnesses. Id.

"Nothing in the court's scheduling order implied that it was altering the date on which the expert report required by article 4590i was due." Id. at 539-40.

The court found that Finley's argument lacked merit and affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal. Id. at 540, 544.