What is the standard of review when appealing a trial court's ruling on motions to dismiss?
This question has been addressed in 3 Texas court opinions:
CHI ST. LUKE’S HEALTH-THE VINTAGE HOSPITAL v. RICHARD AURISANO
COA14 — January 27, 2026
In CHI St. Luke’s Health-The Vintage Hospital v. Aurisano, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed the legal adequacy of expert reports under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). The hospital challenged a plaintiff's medical expert reports, arguing they were "conclusory" because they failed to explain the causal link between the hospital's alleged negligence and the patient's injuries, including a fall and bed sores. The court analyzed the reports using the "how and why" framework, which requires experts to provide a transparent analytical bridge showing how a specific breach of care was a substantial factor in causing the harm. The court held that because the expert failed to provide a factual explanation linking the hospital's conduct to the injuries—leaving the trial court to fill in the blanks with inferences—the reports were legally insufficient. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded the case.
Litigation Takeaway
“To survive a challenge, an expert report must provide an "analytical bridge" that explains the 'how and why' behind a conclusion. In family law—whether dealing with custody evaluations, capacity assessments, or business valuations—practitioners must ensure that experts do not simply state a result but instead provide a transparent, fact-based path from the breach or behavior to the specific outcome or recommendation.”
In Re Marisol Garza
COA13 — January 29, 2026
In a contract dispute that lasted over eleven years, the defendant moved for dismissal for want of prosecution after a 46-month period of total inactivity by the plaintiff. The trial court denied the motion, but the Thirteenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief. The appellate court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a and the court's inherent power, determining that the burden to prosecute a case rests solely on the plaintiff. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion because the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the extensive delays, and the COVID-19 pandemic did not justify a nearly four-year lapse in activity.
Litigation Takeaway
“Don't let 'zombie' litigation linger; if an opposing party files a suit to secure temporary orders and then abandons the case for years, you can force a dismissal. The duty to move a case forward belongs entirely to the person who filed it, and even significant events like the COVID-19 pandemic do not excuse years of total inactivity.”
Brandon Keith Anderson v. The State of Texas
COA12 — January 30, 2026
In this case, a witness provided surprise testimony during a hearing involving prejudicial information that had not been disclosed during discovery. Although the defendant successfully moved the trial court to disregard the testimony, he did not specifically move for a mistrial. On appeal, the Twelfth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a) and the 'preservation ladder,' which generally requires a party to object, request an instruction to disregard, and move for a mistrial to preserve error. The court held that because the appellant received the exact relief he requested (disregarding the testimony) and failed to seek a mistrial or obtain an adverse ruling, the complaint was waived.
Litigation Takeaway
“Winning a motion to strike or disregard surprise testimony is a 'trap' if the evidence is truly 'incurable.' In Texas courts, if a witness drops a 'bombshell' that poisons the well, you must move for a mistrial and secure an adverse ruling to preserve the issue for appeal. Merely asking the judge to disregard the statement is considered a 'win' at trial that results in a procedural default on appeal, leaving you with no recourse if the judge is ultimately influenced by the excluded evidence.”