Jose Carreras, M.D., P.A. v. Marroquin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a plaintiff must provide both the notice and medical authorization form to toll the statute of limitations
• holding that health care liability claimants’ failure to include authorization form with notice precluded claimants from availing themselves of statutory tolling provision because statute provided that “notice must be accompanied by the authorization form”
• holding that “[f]or the statute of limitations to be tolled in a health care liability claim pursuant to Chapter 74, a plaintiff must provide both the statutorily required notice and the statutorily required authorization form”
• holding that “[f]or the statute of limitations to be tolled in a health care liability claim pursuant to Chapter 74, a plaintiff must provide both the statutorily required notice and the statutorily required authorization form”
• recognizing that this Court “interpret[s] statutes to avoid an absurd result”
• “[P]roviding notice of a health care liability claim will toll the statute of limitations for seventy-five days, if the notice is ‘given as provided’ in Chapter 74.” (quoting TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.051(c))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).