Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Cecelia Ledesma v. George L. Shashoua, M.D. Oakwood Women's Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock Joseph Eddings B. Johns, CRNA And Round Rock Medical Center

Cecelia Ledesma v. George L. Shashoua, M.D. Oakwood Women's Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock Joseph Eddings B. Johns, CRNA And Round Rock Medical Center

440 S.W.3d 638, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3749, 2008 WL 2150901
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 23, 2008
Docket03-05-00454-CV
StatusPublished

This text of 440 S.W.3d 638 (Cecelia Ledesma v. George L. Shashoua, M.D. Oakwood Women's Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock Joseph Eddings B. Johns, CRNA And Round Rock Medical Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cecelia Ledesma v. George L. Shashoua, M.D. Oakwood Women's Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock Joseph Eddings B. Johns, CRNA And Round Rock Medical Center, 440 S.W.3d 638, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3749, 2008 WL 2150901 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinions

[639]*639ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

BOB PEMBERTON, Justice.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

Ms. Ledesma has filed a motion for reconsideration en banc. In addition to re-urging her arguments on original submission, Ledesma contends that her inability to obtain discovery befóte the 120-day expert-report deadline caused section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to operate unconstitutionally in her case and rendered the district court’s refusal to grant her a 30-day extension under 74.351(c) an abuse of discretion. As we recently suggested on rehearing in Bo-gar v. Esparza, “ ‘we can certainly imagine a due process deprivation to a health care liability claimant pihned between a firm expert report deadline and a hypothetical absence of discovery tools.’ ” 257 S.W.3d 354 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, no. pet. h.) (op. on reh’g) (quoting Thoyakulathu v. Brennan, 192 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.)). That case has not been presented to us here. Ledesma has not fully and effectively utilized the discovery methods that section 74.351(s) allows, nor preserved any complaints regarding deprivations of such discovery.

We overrule Ms. Ledesma’s motion for reconsideration en banc.

DISSENTING OPINION

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture
145 S.W.3d 150 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Baylor University v. Sonnichsen
221 S.W.3d 632 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Ogletree v. Matthews
262 S.W.3d 316 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Thoyakulathu v. Brennan
192 S.W.3d 849 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Hart v. Wright
16 S.W.3d 872 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Palacios
46 S.W.3d 873 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Bogar v. Esparza
257 S.W.3d 354 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Horsley-Layman v. Angeles
968 S.W.2d 533 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Manor Care Health Services, Inc. v. Ragan
187 S.W.3d 556 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
In Re Stacy K. Boone, Pa
223 S.W.3d 398 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Austin Heart, P.A. v. Webb
228 S.W.3d 276 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Sellers v. Foster
199 S.W.3d 385 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Webb v. Jorns
488 S.W.2d 407 (Texas Supreme Court, 1972)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.
701 S.W.2d 238 (Texas Supreme Court, 1985)
Hall v. Huff
957 S.W.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
State Ex Rel. Public Service Commission v. Padberg
145 S.W.2d 150 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
440 S.W.3d 638, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3749, 2008 WL 2150901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecelia-ledesma-v-george-l-shashoua-md-oakwood-womens-cenre-pa-at-texapp-2008.