The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Dr. Irina Hayrapetyan and Valley View Dental, which was prompted by Yelena Konkina's failure to provide adequate expert reports as required under section 74.351 of the civil practice and remedies code. Konkina, representing herself, raised four issues on appeal related to unfair representation, refusal of written deposition by the defendants' attorneys, inadequacy of expert reports, and insufficient documentation due to a short discovery period.
In her original petition, Konkina claimed negligence by the appellees after receiving six dental crowns in June 2019, resulting in severe pain and other medical issues. After seeing multiple dentists, it was determined that three crowns needed replacement, which alleviated her symptoms. Konkina sought $120,000 in damages for physical and emotional suffering caused by the alleged negligence.
The court noted that, despite being pro se, Konkina was held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and was required to meet procedural rules. The court emphasized the necessity for a brief to include a clear statement of facts and legal arguments, supported by citations. The court declined to independently review the record for errors, reaffirming that the responsibility for presenting valid arguments lies with the appellant. Ultimately, the court found no basis to reverse the dismissal, reinforcing the importance of compliance with legal standards in presenting a case.
In Amrhein v. Bollinger, the appellate court reviewed the appellant's brief for compliance with appellate procedure rules. The court emphasized that failure to adequately brief an issue results in waiver on appeal. The appellant's initial brief lacked appropriate legal citations, prompting the filing of an amended brief, which similarly failed to rectify the deficiencies. Specific issues raised by the appellant included challenges regarding prosecuting her case pro se and the denial of a written deposition for the appellee, neither of which were supported by relevant legal authorities. The appellant also argued for a different discovery level using citations from New Jersey cases, and raised concerns about the trial court's finding on the expert report's adequacy; however, this argument omitted discussions on the applicable Texas statutes and case law. Consequently, the court determined that the appellant had waived her issues due to inadequate briefing. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ordering each party to bear its own costs. Judgment was entered on August 23, 2022.
