Williamson Survivors v. Mustansir Vejlani, M.D., North Houston- TRMC, LLC D/B/A HCA Houston Healthcare Tomball (Incorrectly Named: Tomball Regional, Tomball HCAand HCA Tomball Hospital) and Rebecca Wimberly, R.N.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00859-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 9, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00859-CV ——————————— WILLIAMSON SURVIVORS, Appellant V. MUSTANSIR VEJLANI, M.D., NORTH HOUSTON-TRMC, LLC D/B/A HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE TOMBALL, AND REBECCA WIMBERLY, R.N., Appellees

On Appeal from the 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2021-14298

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se appellant Karen Williamson filed a lawsuit alleging that appellees

Mustansir Vejlani, Rebecca Wimberly, and North Houston-TRMC, LLC d/b/a HCA

Houston Healthcare Tomball—a doctor, a nurse, and a hospital—were responsible for her husband’s death because they did not provide appropriate medical care when

he was hospitalized. On appellees’ motion, the trial court dismissed Williamson’s

claims for failure to serve an expert report under the Texas Medical Liability Act

(“TMLA”).1 We affirm.

Background

In her original petition, Williamson alleged that various acts and omissions of

appellees (and several other defendants who are not parties to this appeal) in

providing medical care and treatment when her husband was hospitalized caused or

contributed to cause her husband’s death. She requested economic and noneconomic

damages on behalf of the “Willamson Survivors.”

Appellees denied Williamson’s allegations in their respective answers and,

after waiting 120 days, moved to dismiss her claims under the TMLA. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(b). Contending that the claims were health care

liability claims, appellees asked the trial court to dismiss because Williamson had

not filed an expert report setting out the applicable standard of care, how appellees’

conduct failed to meet that standard, and the causal relationship between that failure

and the alleged harm. See id. § 74.351(a), (b), (r)(6). Williamson did not respond

to the dismissal motions. The trial court granted appellees’ motions, dismissed

1 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351. 2 Williamson’s claims against them, and severed this action from the remaining claims

against the other defendants.

Williamson appealed.2

Dismissal under the TMLA

The arguments in Williamson’s pro se appellate brief are difficult to discern.

Construing her brief liberally, we understand Williamson’s appellate arguments to

include a list of a various wrongdoings appellees allegedly committed in connection

with their care and treatment of her husband when he was hospitalized. See Horton

v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam) (urging courts to construe

briefs liberally but reasonably). However, Williamson’s claims were dismissed

under the TMLA for her failure to serve an expert report, and we find no argument

addressing that ruling in her appellate brief.

Relevant here, the TMLA requires a plaintiff asserting a health care liability

claim to file an expert report and serve it on each party against whom the claim is

asserted, “not later than the 120th day after the date each defendant’s original answer

is filed.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(a); see also Collin Creek Assisted

Living Ctr., Inc. v. Faber, 671 S.W.3d 879, 885 (Tex. 2023). An expert report is “a

2 This is Williamson’s second appeal from the dismissal of her claims against appellees. The Court dismissed the prior appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because a final judgment had not yet been rendered as to these appellees. See Williamson v. Chahal, No. 01-21-00622-CV, 2022 WL 17981568, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). 3 written report by an expert that provides a fair summary of the expert’s opinions as

of the date of the report regarding the applicable standards of care, the manner in

which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to meet the

standards, and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or

damages claimed.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(r)(6).

If a claimant fails to serve a timely and compliant expert report, the trial court,

on the motion of the affected health care provider, must dismiss the health care

liability claim with prejudice. Id. § 74.351(a), (b); Collin Creek, 671 S.W.3d at 885;

see also Baylor Scott & White, Hillcrest Med. Ctr. v. Weems, 575 S.W.3d 357, 362

(Tex. 2019) (“Dismissal with prejudice is required if an expert report is not timely

served.”). Whether a claim is a health care liability claim subject to the procedural

requirements of the TMLA is a question we review de novo. See Collin Creek, 671

S.W.3d at 885.

As noted, appellees each moved to dismiss on the sole ground that Williamson

asserted health care liability claims and did not file the required expert report. See

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(a), (b). Although Williamson argues in her

brief that appellees committed several errors or omissions (citing several different

laws including even criminal statutes) she does not set forth any argument for why

appellees’ motions to dismiss should not have been granted under the TMLA. We

thus cannot conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the claims against appellees

4 under section 74.351 for failure to serve an expert report within 120 days of

appellees’ answers or in severing this action from the remainder of the lawsuit.

Accordingly, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Andrew Johnson Justice

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.