From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:16:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FAF1.99E14C50" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16480 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FAF1.99E14C50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83826 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Opinion filed September 18,=20 2007.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

_______________

 

NO. 14-06-00902-CV

_______________

 

ALISTA MAXWELL, Appellant

 

V.

 

HEIDI JANE SEIFERT, = Appellee

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;          =20

On Appeal from the 270th District=20 Court

Harris County,=20 Texas

Trial Court Cause No.=20 2006-20490

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;          =20

 

 O P I N I = O=20 N

Alista Maxwell, = appellant, sued=20 Dr. Heidi Jane Seifert, appellee, for medical malpractice.  = Dr.=20 Seifert filed a motion to dismiss for failure to timely file an = expert=20 report as required under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code = section=20 74.351.  After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted = Dr.=20 Seifert=3Ds motion to = dismiss.  In=20 three issues, Maxwell contends the trial court erred by: (1) = dismissing a=20 new claim that she added the day before the hearing, (2) =20 determining  medical records which were provided in response = to Dr.=20 Seifert=3Ds discovery requests = could not=20 constitute an expert report, and (3) failing to rule on=20 Maxwell=3Ds request for a = thirty-day=20 extension to cure a deficiency in the required expert = report.  We=20 affirm. 

I. =20 Background=20

On April 21, 2004, = Dr. Heidi=20 Seifert gave Alista Maxwell an epidural steroid injection to treat = neck=20 pain.  Dr. Seifert used a fluoroscope to guide the needle = into=20 Maxwell=3Ds spinal = region.  After=20 the procedure, Maxwell suffered paralysis on her left side and = temporary=20 vision loss in her left eye.  Subsequently, Maxwell was = examined by=20 Dr. Edward Murphy, a neurosurgeon, and Dr. William Fleming III, a=20 neurologist.  Both doctors opined that Maxwell suffered a = spinal cord=20 injury.

On March 29, 2006, = Maxwell=20 filed suit, alleging Dr. Seifert was negligent in performing the = epidural=20 steroid injection by causing the needle to travel through her = spinal cord,=20 resulting in significant and permanent damage.  Under Texas = Civil=20 Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351(a), a claimant in a = medical=20 malpractice suit must serve on each party, no later than the 120th = day=20 after the date the original petition was filed, one or more expert = reports=20 with a curriculum vitae of each expert listed in the report.  = Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' 74.351(a) (Vernon = Supp.=20 2006).  Therefore, Maxwell=3Ds expert report was = due on July=20 27, 2006, the 120th day after the suit was filed. =20

On August 17, 2006, = Dr. Seifert=20 filed a motion to dismiss based on Maxwell=3Ds failure to timely = serve an=20 expert report pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code = section=20 74.351.  On September 1, 2006, Maxwell filed a response to = Dr.=20 Seifert=3Ds motion to dismiss, = arguing=20 that she complied with the expert report requirement by producing = medical=20 records from Dr. Murphy and Dr. Fleming in her response to Dr.=20 Seifert=3Ds request for = production.[1] = In the=20 alternative, she also requested a thirty-day extension to cure any = deficiencies.

On September 21, = 2006, the day=20 before the motion-to-dismiss hearing, Maxwell filed a First = Amended=20 Petition, Supplemental Response to Defendant=3Ds Motion to Dismiss, = and=20 Plaintiff=3Ds Amended Responses = to=20 Defendant=3Ds First Request for=20 Production.  In the First Amended Petition, Maxwell alleged, = for the=20 first time, two additional claims of liability against Dr. = Seifert:=20 (1)  failure to disclose risks of the procedure under Texas = Civil=20 Practice and Remedies Code section 74.101; and (2) res ipsa=20 loquitor.  In the Supplemental Response to = Defendant=3Ds Motion to Dismiss, = she=20 explained that she amended her responses to the request for = production and=20 they were responsive to a request for any expert reports in = compliance=20 with section 74.351. She also argued that the amended responses = should=20 Arelate back to and=20 supplant@ the original=20 responses.

On September 22, = 2006, the=20 trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  At = the=20 hearing, appellant argued that the medical records she provided in = response to Dr. Seifert=3Ds discovery request = within 120=20 days of filing suit met the expert report requirement.  She = further=20 argued that only an opinion on causation is required in an expert = report=20 where the claim is failure to disclose risks of procedure or = res ipsa=20 loquitor and that her medical records satisfied this = element. =20 Maxwell alternatively requested a thirty-day extension to file an = expert=20 report if the trial court found the medical records were merely a=20 deficient expert report.  During the hearing, = Maxwell=3Ds counsel also = admitted that he=20 originally did not intend for the medical records to serve as a = section=20 74.351 expert report; however, he mistakenly calendered the expert = report=20 filing date under the former deadline, which required an expert = report to=20 be filed within 180 days.

The trial court = signed an order=20 granting Dr. Seifert=3Ds motion to dismiss=20 Maxwell=3Ds claims with = prejudice on=20 September 28, 2005.

II. =20 Standard of Review

We review a trial=20 court=3Ds ruling as to the = adequacy of=20 an expert report under an abuse of discretion = standard.   Am.=20 Transitional Care Ctrs. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Tex.=20 2001).  A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an=20 arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to guiding = rules or=20 principles.  See Garcia v. Martinez, 988 S.W.2d 219, = 222 (Tex.=20 1999).  When reviewing matters committed to the trial=20 court=3Ds discretion, we may = not=20 substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court.  = Walker=20 v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992).  A trial = court does=20 not abuse its discretion merely because it decides a discretionary = matter=20 differently than an appellate court would in a similar = circumstance. =20 See Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238,=20 241B42 (Tex. 1985).  = However,=20 to the extent resolution of this issue requires interpretation of = the=20 statute itself, we apply a de novo standard. Buck v. Blum, = 130=20 S.W.3d 285, 290 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Ponce v. El Paso Healthcare Sys.,=20 Ltd., 55 S.W.3d 34, 36 (Tex. App.CEl Paso=20 2001, pet. denied); Gomez v. Matey, 55 S.W.3d 732, 735 n.2 = (Tex.=20 App.CCorpus=20 Christi 2001, no pet.).   

III.  = Dismissal of=20 New Claims

 

In her first issue, = Maxwell=20 contends the trial court erred by dismissing her failure-to = disclose-risks=20 claim, which she added in her First Amended Petition filed the day = before=20 the motion-to-dismiss hearing.  Specifically, appellant = contends this=20 claim was a Adistinct health care = liability=20 claim@ from the original = claim of=20 negligence in the performance of the epidural steroid injection, = and a new=20 120-day time line to file an expert report with regard to this = claim began=20 when she amended her petition.  However, section 74.351(a) = clearly=20 requires that a claimant serve her expert report not later than = the 120th=20 day after the date the Aoriginal = petition@ was filed. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' 74.351(a).  = Maxwell did=20 not file her expert report within 120 days after the original = petition was=20 filed.  She did not gain another 120 days in which to serve = an expert=20 report when she filed her amended petition on September 21, = 2006.[2] =20 Accordingly, we overrule appellant=3Ds first = issue.  =20 =             &= nbsp;       =20

IV. =20 Expert Report 

In her second issue, = Maxwell=20 contends the trial court erred by determining that her production = of=20 medical records in response to discovery requests did not satisfy = section=20 74.351.  Specifically, Maxwell contends the medical records=20 constitute an expert report under section 74.351 because the = medical=20 causation question was addressed by one or more of the physicians = who=20 created the records.  In her brief, Maxwell quotes portions = of the=20 medical records that purportedly constitute an expert report under = section=20 74.351. 

After reviewing the = statute and=20 the Texas Supreme Court=3Ds instruction = regarding =20 the purpose and requirements of expert reports in medical = malpractice=20 cases, we conclude that the Maxwell=3Ds bulk medical = records, served=20 in response to Dr. Siefert=3Ds discovery requests, = do not=20 constitute an expert report under section 74.351. = Maxwell=3Ds medical records are = reflective of her physician=3Ds contemporaneous = observations,=20 diagnosis and treatment.  The content is not responsive to = specific=20 questions related to the standard of care and medical causation. = An expert=20 report is defined as a written report by an expert that provides a = fair=20 summary of the expert=3Ds opinions as of the = date of=20 the report regarding: (1) applicable standard of care; (2) the = manner in=20 which the care provided failed to meet the standards; and (3) the = causal=20 relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages = claimed.  Tex. Civ. = Prac.=20 & Rem. Code Ann. ' 74.35(r)(6) (Vernon = Supp.=20 2006). The Texas Supreme Court has explained that an expert report = must=20 include information sufficient to fulfill two purposes:  (1) = inform=20 the defendant of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called = into=20 question; and (2) provide a basis for the trial court to conclude = that the=20 claims have merit.  See Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. = v.=20 Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 879 (Tex. 2001).  In contrast = with=20 medical records, an expert report is not admissible, and shall not = be used=20 in a deposition, trial or other proceeding unless the claimant = uses it for=20 any purpose other than to fulfill the service requirement.  = Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' 74.351(k)(1)(2), (t) = (Vernon=20 Supp. 2006). Accordingly, we cannot agree with = appellant=3Ds suggestion that Dr. = Seifert=20 was  required to read bulk medical records and search for the = statutorily required information.  Moreover, it would be very = difficult, if not impossible, for a defendant to timely fulfill = the 21 day=20 requirement for filing objections to the sufficiency of an=20 expert=3Ds report when a = plaintiff=20 produces bulk medical records without identifying the portion of = the=20 records that fulfills the requirements of section 74.351(a).  =

In her brief, Maxwell = implicitly admits that her medical records do not contain the = statutorily=20 required opinion regarding the standard of care or how Dr. Seifert = allegedly breached that standard. However, Maxwell suggests her = res ipsa=20 loquitor claim survives the requirements of section 74.351.  = Our=20 court has previously rejected this contention.  See Ruiz = v.=20 Walgreen Co., 79 S.W. 3d 2235, 239S40 (Tex. = App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2002, no=20 pet.) (concluding that even if res ipsa loquitor does apply, an = expert=20 report is still required); See also Hector v. Christus = Health=20 Gulf Coast and  Cannan L. Harris, M.D., 175 S.W. 3d = 832, 839=20 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2005 pet.=20 denied).

Accordingly, we hold = that the=20 bulk medical records Maxwell served in response to Dr. = Seifert=3Ds request for = production do not=20 constitute an expert report under section 74.351. =20 Maxwell=3Ds second issue is=20 overruled. 

V. =20 Request for an Extension

In her third issue, = Maxwell=20 contends the trial court erred by failing to rule on = Maxwell=3Ds request for a = thirty-day=20 extension to cure a deficiency in her purported expert = report. =20

Section 74.351(c) = provides:=20 AIf an expert report = has not=20 been served within the period specified by Subsection (a) because = elements=20 of the report are found deficient, the court may grant one 30-day=20 extension to the claimant in order to cure the = deficiency.@ Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' 74.351(c) (Vernon = Supp.=20 2006).  Several courts of appeals, including this court, have interpreted this = language=20 to mean that the thirty-day extension applies only when an initial = expert=20 report is timely filed.  See Estate of Regis ex rel. = McWashington=20 v. Harris County Hosp. Dist., 208 S.W.3d 64, 67 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2006, no=20 pet.) (AAlthough section = 74.351(c)=20 gives a court discretion to grant 30 days to amend a deficient = expert=20 report, this section applies only when an initial report is timely = filed;=20 it is not available to extend the deadline for first filing a=20 report.@); Valley Baptist = Med. Ctr.=20 v. Azua, 198 S.W.3d 810, 815 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 2006, = no pet.)=20 (holding that A[a]n extension under = section=20 74.351(c) is not available if the expert report is not served by = the=20 deadline@); Herrera v. = Seton Nw.=20 Hosp., 212 S.W.3d 452, 460 (Tex. App.CAustin 2006, no pet.) = (noting=20 that section 74.351(c) did not apply to plaintiff=3Ds late-filed expert = report=20 because that section Apermits extensions = for expert=20 reports that the court finds deficient in substance, not for = reports that=20 are filed untimely@); Thoyakulathu v. = Brennan, 192 S.W.3d 849, 852B53 (Tex. = App.CTexarkana 2006, no = pet.)=20 (same). 

Because = Maxwell=3Ds bulk medical = records do not=20 constitute an expert report under section 74.351, we hold the = trial court=20 did not err by failing or refusing to rule on her request for a = thirty-day=20 extension to cure a deficiency.  Accordingly, we overrule=20 appellant=3Ds third issue. =

The judgment of the = trial court=20 is=20 = affirmed.          &= nbsp;           =20

 

 

 

/s/       =20 Charles W. Seymore

Justice

 

Judgment rendered and = Opinion=20 filed September 18, 2007.

Panel consists of = Justices=20 Yates, Seymore, and Edelman.*  =

 

 


[1]  Specifically, she produced the = medical=20 records in response to Dr. Seifert=3Ds request for production number 14 = requesting=20 ATrue, complete, and correct copies of = any and all=20 records, correspondence, notes and/or reports from any physician = and/or=20 healthcare provider who has opined that any injury to plaintiff = was=20 caused, in whole or in part, by any negligence of Heidi Jane = Seifert,=20 M.D.@ 

[2]  In support of her argument, = appellant cites=20 Puls v. Columbia Hospital at Medical City Dallas Subsidary, = 92=20 S.W.3d 613, 617B18 (Tex. App.CDallas 2002, pet. denied).  = However, =20 the Puls court applied Texas Revised Civil Statute article = 4590i,=20 section 13.01(d), which provided that the expert report was due no = later=20 than the 180th day after the health care liability claim was = filed. =20 See Puls, 92 S.W.3d at 617 (citing Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. = 4590i, ' 13.01(d) (repealed in 2003)).  In = 2003, the=20 Legislature repealed article 4590i of the Revised Civil Statutes = and moved=20 the amended provisions of former article 4590i to Chapter 74 of = the Civil=20 Practice and Remedies Code.  See Act of June 2, 2003, = 78th=20 Leg., R.S., ch. 204, '' 10.01, 10.09, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847,=20 864B82, 884.  Appellant also cites for = support=20 the 2003 version of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code = section=20 74.351(a) which provided that a claimant must file an expert = report=20 Anot later than the 120th day after the = date the=20 claim was filed.@  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' 75.351(a) (Vernon 2005) (repealed in = 2005)=20 (emphasis added).  However, in 2005 the Legislature amended = section=20 74.351(a) by substituting the words Aoriginal petition@ for the word Aclaim@ in the first sentence of section = 75.351(a). =20 See Act of May 18, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 635, = ' 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1590.  This = amendment=20 became effective September 1, 2005.  Therefore, the 2005 = amendment=20 applies to the original petition which was filed in this case on = March 29,=20 2006.

*  Senior Justice Richard H. Edelman = sitting=20 by = assignment.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FAF1.99E14C50 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FAF1.99E14C50 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7FAF1.99E14C50--