From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:44:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C81F1B.2CA99B30" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C81F1B.2CA99B30 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=83981 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Reversed=20 and Rendered in Part and Reversed and = Remanded in Part and Memorandum Opinion filed = November 1,=20 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-07-00365-CV

____________

 

MATTHEW G.=20 MCMENEMY, M.D., = Appellant

 

V.

 

DONALD M.=20 HOLDEN AND MARY HOLDEN, = Appellees

 

 

On Appeal from the = 434th Judicial District

Fort=20 Bend=20 County, Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 06-CV-151678

 

 

M E M O R=20 A N D U M    O P I N I O N

In this=20 health care liability action, Dr. Matthew G. McMenemy appeals the = trial=20 court=3Ds order=20 overruling his objections to an amended expert report and denying = his=20 motion to dismiss.  Because the amended expert report does = not=20 constitute a good faith effort to comply with section 74.351(r)(6) = of the=20 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, we reverse the trial=20 court=3Ds order,=20 render judgment dismissing appellees=3D = claims=20 with prejudice, and remand the case for determination of = reasonable=20 attorneys=3D = fees and=20 costs.

I. =20 Factual and Procedural Background

Appellees=20 Donald M. Holden (AHolden@) and his=20 wife Mary allege that on the evening of June 13, 2004, Holden = suddenly=20 lost the vision in his left eye due to a central retinal artery = occlusion=20 (ACRAO@), which=20 is a blood clot blocking the artery leading to the eye.  = About=20 fifteen or twenty minutes later, Holden arrived at Methodist Sugar = Land=20 Hospital, where he was examined by Dr. Scott Rivenes.  Dr. = Rivenes=20 noted that Holden=3Ds left eye=20 could only perceive light and general movement, and referred him = to the=20 hospital=3Ds=20 Aon=20 call@ = ophthalmologist, appellant Matthew G. McMenemy, M.D.  =

According=20 to reports prepared by Holden=3Ds retained=20 expert, Dr. Robert Lamberg, the nursing notes from the hospital = reflect=20 that Holden was not taken to Dr. McMenemy=3Ds office=20 until 9:40 p.m., just over three hours after the vision = loss.  Dr.=20 Lamberg further reported that, although the nursing notes indicate = that=20 Holden returned from McMenemy=3Ds office=20 thirty minutes later, there were no notes of services Dr. McMenemy = rendered.  At 10:50 p.m., Holden signed a consent for the=20 administration of Retavase and received the first dose at 10:58 = p.m. =20 There was no improvement in Holden=3Ds vision,=20 and he was admitted to the hospital at 12:30 a.m. on June 14, 2004 = under=20 the care of Dr. Anil B. Patel.  Tests revealed that=20 Holden=3Ds left=20 carotid artery was 40B50%=20 occluded.  The visual loss persisted, and Holden was = discharged from=20 the hospital on June 15, 2004.

On August=20 25, 2006, Holden sued Methodist Sugar Land Hospital and Drs. = McMenemy and=20 Rivenes.[1] =20 On December 20, 2006, the Holdens served Dr. McMenemy with Dr.=20 Lamberg=3Ds August=20 16, 2006 expert report.  Dr. McMenemy objected to the report = and=20 filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the report failed to = address=20 Dr. Lamberg=3Ds=20 qualifications, the standard of care, breach of the standard of = care, and=20 causation.

On January=20 19, 2007, the parties appeared before Judge Vacek in the = 400th=20 Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, and Judge Vacek = transferred=20 the case to the 434th District Court.  On January = 25,=20 2007, Judge Wagenback sustained Dr. McMenemy=3Ds=20 objections and gave the Holdens thirty days to the amend the = expert=20 report.

The=20 Holdens produced an amended expert report on February 23, 2007.[2] =20 Dr. McMenemy objected to the amended report on March 13, 2007 on = the=20 ground that it failed to appropriately address causation.  = The=20 Holdens mailed a response to Dr. McMenemy=3Ds=20 objections, but it was not received by counsel before the hearing = on April=20 2, 2007.  At the hearing, Judge Shoemake denied the motion to = dismiss.  This accelerated interlocutory appeal timely=20 followed.  See Tex.=20 Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' = 51.014(a)(9) (Vernon Supp. 2006).

II. =20 Issue Presented

In a=20 single issue, Dr. McMenemy contends the trial court abused its = discretion=20 by overruling his objections to the amended expert report and = denying his=20 motion to dismiss.  He argues that dismissal is required = because the=20 amended report is conclusory and speculative regarding causation = and=20 therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of section = 74.351(r)(6) of the=20 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  We agree.

III. =20 Analysis

A.     =20 Expert Report Requirements

This is a health care = liability=20 lawsuit governed by chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice & = Remedies=20 Code.  Tex.=20 Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. = '' = 74.001B.507=20 (Vernon 2005 & Supp. 2006).  Under these provisions, a = claimant=20 is required to produce an expert report within 120 days of the = date the=20 claim was filed.[3] =20 The expert report must provide:

a fair=20 summary of the expert=3Ds opinions=20 as of the date of the report regarding applicable standards of = care, the=20 manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care = provider=20 failed to meet the standards, and the causal relationship between = that=20 failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

Id. = ' = 74.351(r)(6).  The trial court may grant a single 30-day = extension to=20 cure deficiencies in the report.  Id. ' = 74.351(c).  But Aif it=20 appears to the court, after hearing, that the report does not = represent an=20 objective good faith effort to comply with the definition of an = expert=20 report in Subsection (r)(6),@ = then the=20 court shall grant a motion challenging the report=3Ds=20 adequacy.  Id. ' 74.351(l). =20

Although=20 an expert report Aneed not=20 marshal all the plaintiff=3Ds=20 proof, . . . it must include the = expert=3Ds opinion=20 on each of the elements identified in the statute.@ =20 Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 = S.W.3d=20 873, 878 (Tex. 2001) (applying predecessor statute).  When=20 considering a motion to dismiss based on the inadequacy of an = expert=20 report, A[t]he=20 issue for the trial court is whether >the=20 report=3D = represents a good-faith effort to comply with the statutory = definition of=20 an expert report.@ =20 Id.  To constitute a Agood-faith=20 effort,@ = the=20 report must provide enough information to fulfill two purposes:=20 (1) it must inform the defendant of the specific conduct the=20 plaintiff has called into question, and (2) it must provide a = basis for=20 the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.  = Id.=20 at 879.  AA report=20 that merely states the expert=3Ds=20 conclusions about the standard of care, breach, and causation does = not=20 fulfill these two purposes.  Nor can a report meet these = purposes and=20 thus constitute a good-faith effort if it omits any of the = statutory=20 requirements.@ =20 Id.  In deciding whether this standard is met, = Aa trial=20 court should look no further than the=20 report. . . . .@ =20 Id. at 878.

B.     =20 Standard of Review

We review=20 the trial court=3Ds ruling=20 for abuse of discretion.  Estate of Regis ex rel. = McWashington v.=20 Harris County Hosp. Dist., 208 S.W.3d 64, 67 (Tex. = App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Doades v. Syed, 94 S.W.3d 664, = 671=20 (Tex. App.CSan=20 Antonio 2002, no pet.).  A trial court abuses its discretion = if it=20 acts without reference to any guiding principles.  Downer = v.=20 Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241B42 (Tex.=20 1985).  A>Under this=20 standard, a reviewing court may not disturb the trial = court=3Ds=20 resolution of factual issues, even if the reviewing court would = have=20 decided the issue differently, unless the resolution is shown to = be=20 arbitrary and unreasonable.=3D@ =20 Doades, 94 S.W.3d at 671 (quoting Morrill v. Third Coast = Emergency Physicians, P.A., 32 S.W.3d 324, 327 (Tex. = App.CSan=20 Antonio 2000, pet. denied)).  Thus, A[a] trial=20 court=3Ds=20 resolution of a factual issue is arbitrary and unreasonable if the = relator=20 establishes that the trial court could reasonably have reached = only one=20 decision.@ =20 Morrill, 32 S.W.3d at 327 (citing Walker v. Packer, = 827=20 S.W.2d 833, 831B40 (Tex.=20 1992) (orig. proceeding)).

But a=20 trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or = applying=20 the law to the facts.  See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840 = (failure=20 by trial court to analyze or apply law correctly constitutes abuse = of=20 discretion).  A trial court must grant a motion challenging = the=20 adequacy of an expert report if the report does not represent an = objective=20 good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert = report in=20 subsection (r)(6).  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' = 74.351(l).

C.     =20 Conclusory Statements of Causation =

We agree=20 with Dr. McMenemy that under the law as properly applied, the = amended=20 expert report does not constitute a good-faith effort to satisfy = the=20 requirements of 74.351 and is instead speculative and conclusory = regarding=20 the element of causation.  These deficiencies arise from the=20 expert=3Ds failure=20 to define Atimely@ = application of first aid and his failure to make any statements of = probability. 

To place=20 these deficiencies in context, we begin with Dr. = Lamberg=3Ds=20 description of the standard of care and its breach:

The standard of = care for a=20 patient who presents with a sudden and painless loss of vision in = one eye=20 involves a rapid check for injury and examination of the = fundi.  Mr.=20 Holden was diagnosed to have a CRAO.  The standard of care = for a=20 patient diagnosed with a CRAO includes[:]

1)      =20 Timely recognition of the signs and symptoms of an occlusion in = the eye,=20 including limited light perception and perception of = movement.

2)      =20 Timely and properly administering first aid in an effort to break = up the=20 blood clot.

With respect to the = initial=20 treatment which could be administered to a patient who = presents=20 with a CRAO, the following types of aid could be employed:=20 (1) massage of the eye globe to try to break up the clot;=20 (2) introduction of carbon dioxide by breathing into a paper = bag to=20 try to dilate the retinal artery with increased CO2 in the blood; = and (3)=20 application of topical beta blocker drops and/or Diamox IV to = lower the=20 pressure in the eye.  Should these steps fail, then the=20 ophthalmologist must perform a paracentesis (puncture of the eye = globe) to=20 immediately lower the pressure in the eye.

In the case of Mr. = Holden,=20 the medical records reveal that Dr. McMenemy breached the standard = of care=20 for an ophthalmologist by not timely performing first aid to the=20 patient=3Ds left eye, = including the=20 failure to either massage the eye, or trying to lower the pressure = in the=20 eye by the introduction of either CO2 or other topical drops, and = then not=20 performing a paracentesis of that eye to lower the pressure in the = eye to=20 let the blood pressure move the clot into the peripheral = retina. =20 Over four hours had passed since Mr. Holden first presented to the = hospital complaining of a sudden loss of vision in his left eye to = the=20 time an attempt was made to lyse the clot with Retavase.  = During that=20 time, there were no attempts made to resuscitate the stroke in the = blind=20 eye other than an application of the Retavase . . . . I have = personally=20 treated patients who presented with the same or similar = circumstances as=20 Mr. Holden, and have timely applied first aid to their CRAOs, as = well as=20 performed paracenteses, with the patients having successfully = regained=20 their eye sight, or never having fully lost their sight.  In = my=20 opinion, if Dr. McMenemy had timely treated Mr. Holden in this = manner, he=20 could have regained the sight in his left eye.

. .=20 .

It is my opinion = based on=20 reasonable medical probability that Dr. Matthew McMenemy fell = below the=20 standard of care for an ophthalmologist, and was therefore = negligent, as=20 defined above,[[4]]=20 by his:

1)      =20 Failure to timely and properly administer first aid in an effort = to break=20 up the blood clot in Mr. Holden=3Ds left = eye.

2)      =20 Failure to timely perform a paracentesis of the left eye to = immediately=20 lower the pressure in that eye.

(emphasis=20 added).

The=20 conclusory statements in this amended expert report fail to = provide a=20 basis for the trial court to conclude that the Holdens=3Ds claims=20 have merit.  See Bowie Mem=3Dl Hosp. v.=20 Wright, 79=20 S.W.3d 48, 52B53 (Tex.=20 2002) (per curiam) (holding that causation was not established by=20 statement that Aif the=20 x-rays would have been correctly read and the appropriate medical=20 personnel acted upon those findings then Wright would have had the = possibility of a better outcome@). =20 Specifically, we cannot determine from this report whether the = opportunity=20 for Atimely@ = intervention was still available at the time that Dr. McMenemy = examined=20 Holden, and whether it was probable that performance of the first = aid=20 measures described would have reversed Holden=3Ds vision=20 loss.

1.      =20 No Definition of ATimely@

The=20 Holdens argue that the amended expert report adequately addresses=20 timeliness in this passage:

Over four=20 hours had passed=20 since Mr. Holden first presented to the hospital complaining of a = sudden=20 loss of vision in his left eye to the time an attempt was made to = lyse the=20 clot with Retavase.  During that time, there were no = attempts=20 made to resuscitate the stroke in the blind eye other than an = application=20 of the Retavase.

(emphasis=20 added).  This statement commingles the time when Holden was = under the=20 care of Dr. Riveness, Dr. McMenemy, and Methodist Hospital, but = does not=20 identify any point at which Holden=3Ds vision=20 loss was reversible.  This ambiguity is particularly = problematic=20 because the Holdens do not contend that Dr. McMenemy had any = opportunity=20 to examine or treat Holden during the first three hours after the = onset of=20 his symptoms.  But Dr. McMenemy=3Ds failure=20 to perform first aid can only have been a cause of = Holden=3Ds injury=20 if there was a reasonable medical probability that = Holden=3Ds vision=20 loss was reversible at 9:40 p.m. 

In sum,=20 the report does not remedy the deficiency identified by the trial = court=20 when it gave the Holdens the opportunity to file an amended report = A[t]o=20 specifically state causation of plaintiff=3Ds injuries=20 with respect to the conduct of Dr. McMenemy.@ =20 Although the amended expert report contains Dr. = Lamberg=3Ds opinion=20 that timely first aid could have reversed Holden=3Ds vision=20 loss, nothing in the report indicates that Dr. McMenemy had the=20 opportunity to render Atimely@ = assistance, or defines Atimely@ = to=20 include the period of time during which Holden was under Dr.=20 McMenemy=3Ds=20 care.  The amended expert report contains no indication that = it is=20 probable Holden would have regained his sight if Dr. McMenemy had = taken a=20 particular action when he saw Holden more than three hours after = Holden=20 first lost his sight.  Significantly, the expert opined in = his=20 prior report:

[Dr.=20 McMenemy] failed to provide the standard of care for the = catastrophic=20 central retinal artery occlusion that presented within=20 2 = hour of=20 the event.  While the=20 outcome of the CRAO is variable, even when all of the above steps = are=20 taken, there is still a significant percentage of eyes that = recuperate=20 some level of useful vision even 24 hours after an artery=20 occlusion.[[5]]

=

In=20 amending his original report to cure its deficiencies, Dr. Lamberg = continued to avoid expressing any opinion regarding the time at = which=20 Holden=3Ds loss of=20 vision became permanent, or alternatively, whether = Holden=3Ds loss of=20 vision was permanent from the outset.  Although the report = indicates=20 that some instances of CRAO respond to treatment, the report does = not=20 indicate that this patient=3Ds loss of=20 vision was curable at any time. 

2.      =20 No Indication of Probability

This leads=20 us to the second problem with the amended expert report: it = contains no=20 indication of probability.  Dr. Lamberg =3Ds amended=20 report expresses no opinion that, more than three hours after = losing his=20 sight, it was more likely than not that Holden=3Ds vision=20 would be restored by any of the acts that Dr. Lamberg identifies = as=20 required by the standard of care.  We do not imply that an = expert=20 report is required to describe the causal relationship in terms of = Areasonable=20 medical probability@ = or other=20 Amagic@ = words.  Id. at 53.  But regardless of the = specific words=20 used, a report must do more than express a mere possibility.  = Id. 

This is=20 particularly true when the patient complains of the health care=20 provider=3Ds failure=20 to reverse an impairment.  A[W]here=20 preexisting illnesses or injuries have made a patient=3Ds chance=20 of avoiding the ultimate harm improbable even before the allegedly = negligent conduct occursCi.e., the=20 patient would die or suffer impairment anywayCthe=20 application of these traditional causation principles will totally = bar=20 recovery, even if such negligence has deprived the patient of a=20 chance of avoiding the harm.@ =20 Kramer v. Lewisville Mem=3Dl=20 Hosp., 858=20 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tex. 1993).  A[N]egligent=20 conduct is a cause of harm to another if, in a natural and = continuous=20 sequence, it produces an event, and without the negligent = conduct such=20 event would not have occurred.@ =20 Id. at 404 (emphasis added). 

At best,=20 Dr. Lamberg opined that Dr. McMenemy probably breached the = standard of=20 care, and speculated that the breach caused Holden to lose some=20 unquantified chance of recovery.  Significantly, he does not = conclude=20 that it is more likely than not that, absent Dr. = McMenemy=3Ds=20 negligence, Holden would have recovered his = vision.

The=20 Holdens respond that Dr. Lamberg adequately addressed causation in = his=20 statement, AIn my=20 opinion, if Dr. McMenemy had timely treated Mr. Holden in this = manner, he=20 could have regained the sight in his left eye.@ =20 They argue that, read in context, Dr. Lamberg=3Ds=20 statement that Holden Acould=20 have@ = regained=20 sight is the equivalent of a statement that it is Amore=20 likely than not@ = that=20 Holden would have recovered.  We disagree.

First,=20 gaps in an expert report may not be filled by Adrawing=20 inferences or guessing as to what the expert likely meant or=20 intended.@ =20 Austin Heart, P.A. v. Webb, 228 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex.=20 App.CAustin=20 2007, no pet. h.).  Moreover, such an inference is contrary = to the=20 plain meaning of the language used in the report.  The word=20 Acould@ = is the=20 past tense of Acan@ = and is=20 used as the past or past conditional tense of Acan@ = and in=20 Athe=20 auxiliary function in the past tense and as an alternative to = can=20 suggesting less force or certainty . . . .@ =20 Merriam-Webster=3Ds=20 Third New Int=3Dl=20 Dictionary, 517=20 (Philip Babcock Gove, ed., 3d ed., 1993).

Because=20 the word Acould@ = expresses=20 uncertainty as to whether Holden=3Ds sight=20 was even capable of restoration, the report cannot be read to = imply that=20 such restoration was not merely possible, but probable.  And = without=20 some indication of probability, however expressed, the expert = report fails=20 to indicate that the Holdens=3D = claims=20 have merit.  Cf. Gallardo v.=20 Ugarte, 145=20 S.W.3d 272, 279 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 2004, pet. = denied)=20 (AThe breach in the = standards of=20 care by Sunset Haven Nursing Center, Dr. Adrian O. Ugarte, MD, and = [Sunset=3Ds medical director] = caused=20 the death of Mr. Roberto Gallardo.@) (emphasis added); = Estate=20 of Birdwell ex rel v. Texarkana Mem=3Dl Hosp., = Inc., 122 S.W.3d 473, 478 = (Tex.=20 App.CTexarkana 2003, pet. = denied)=20 (ABased upon reasonable = medical=20 probabilities, it is my opinion that the nurses at Wadley and Dr. = Malcolm=20 Smith deviated from the appropriate standard of care while = treating Bessie=20 Birdwell and that this deviation from the appropriate standard of = care=20 was a cause of Ms. Birdwell=3Ds=20 injuries . . . .@) (emphasis added); = Moore v.=20 Sutherland, 107 S.W.3d 786, 790 (Tex. App.CTexarkana 2003, pet. = denied)=20 (AHad the diagnosis of = bile=20 peritonitis been made before discharge from the hospital, = treatment=20 would have prevented the patient=3Ds death.@) (emphasis added); = In re=20 Barker, 110 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2003) = (A[I]t is my opinion, = with a=20 reasonable degree of medical probability, that but for Dr.=20 Barker=3Ds negligence = in diagnosis and = treating and=20 obtaining timely neurosurgical consultation, Mr. = Meissner=3Ds subsequent = neurological=20 deficits and long-term disability would have been=20 avoided.@) (emphasis = added).

Because=20 the expert report, as amended, does not constitute a good-faith = effort to=20 satisfy statutory requirements, we sustain Dr. = McMenemy=3Ds sole=20 issue on appeal.

IV. =20 Conclusion

We hold=20 that the Holdens have failed to satisfy the expert report = requirements of=20 Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies = Code.  We=20 therefore reverse the trial court=3Ds order of=20 April 2, 2007 denying Dr. McMenemy=3Ds second=20 motion to dismiss, render judgment dismissing the = Holdens=3D = claims=20 against Dr. McMenemy with prejudice, and remand the cause to the = trial=20 court for determination of Dr. McMenemy=3Ds=20 reasonable attorney=3Ds fees and=20 costs of court in accordance with section 74.351(b) of the Texas = Civil=20 Practice and Remedies Code.

 

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

 

 

/s/     =20 Eva M. Guzman

Justice

 

 

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1, 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Justices Yates, Fowler, and Guzman.


[1]  Dr. McMenemy does not contend = that=20 Holden=3Ds claims are time-barred.  See = Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code=20 Ann. ' 74.251 (Vernon 2005) (imposing a = two-year=20 limitations period on health care liability = claims).

[2]  Although received on February 23, = 2007, the=20 report is dated February 26, 2007.

[3]  Section 74.351(a) was amended in = 2005 to=20 substitute Athe original petition was = filed@ for Athe claim was filed@; however, this amendment applies only = to a cause=20 of action that accrues on or after September 1, 2005. See = id.=20 ' 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp. = 2006).

[4]  Dr. Lamberg used a definition of = negligence=20 that did not require a finding of causation.  Although he = also listed=20 a definition of proximate cause, he defined negligence only as = failure to=20 use ordinary care and did not assert that this failure caused=20 Holden=3Ds vision loss to become=20 permanent.

[5]  On appeal, all of the parties = cite to both=20 expert reports.  In neither report does Holden attribute the=20 three-hour delay in treatment to Dr. McMenemy.=20

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C81F1B.2CA99B30 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_0015_01C81F1B.2CA99B30 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_0015_01C81F1B.2CA99B30--