Patricia Oramas, pro se, alleged her husband Henry died in UTMB Galveston's care after being left unattended, found disconnected from his oxygen in a pool of blood, and given a drug dangerous to patients with kidney problems he was known to have; he had been hospitalized for COVID-19.¹

She missed the 120-day deadline to serve an expert report and CV under Section 74.351; she says she learned of the requirement only when the hospital moved to dismiss, and served a report nineteen days after the motion, about two months late. The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice and the First Court of Appeals affirmed (2025 WL 2446013), rejecting any suggestion the case was frivolous; the Court denied review May 15, 2026.¹

Petition for review from the First Court of Appeals, denied, with a concurring opinion.²

Whether the statutory dismissal could be excused; the Court denied review, and the concurrence addresses access to justice for pro se plaintiffs.¹

The hospital invoked the deadline; the lower courts held they had no choice but to dismiss. Justice Young notes the hospital's lawyer met with Oramas after the deadline to agree on a scheduling order with a later expert deadline, only to move to dismiss weeks later.¹

Not applicable⁠—the petition was denied.

None noted

Reasoning

Courts must enforce clear statutory requirements absent a constitutional impediment, but the Legislature may reconsider where a good-faith plaintiff scrambling to comply forfeits a merits hearing; Oramas's ability to find an expert quickly suggests the claim had some merit, and her problem reflects lack of access to capable counsel in an economically unattractive, complex regime.¹

Disposition

Petition for review denied.

Vote Breakdown

Justice Young concurred in the denial, joined by Justices Devine and Busby.²