by implication is permitted only to supply obvious intent not expressly stated, and never to contradict nor add to a stat-ute_ We therefore decline to accept the appellant’s contention that article 4590i impliedly includes physicians .... Id. at 104-105 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 3 . AMT did not offer affidavits from Dr. Smith, John Conyers or Barbara Thomas. 4 . AMT claims Schultz waived her complaints concerning the affidavits by failing to secure a written ruling on her objections to the summary judgment proof. However, Schultz’s complaints are addressed not to the form of the affidavits, which may be waived by failure to object, but to their substance. See Ramirez v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 818, 829 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Objections to defects in the substance of
recognizing that a defendant may not raise one ground for objection at trial and argue a different ground on appeal holding that objection to procedural defect was waived where plaintiffs failed to articulate it in removal holding objection to affidavit on ground it states legal conclusion relates to defect in substance holding that speculation objection as to expert testimony was waived where a different ground for objection was offered below holding that the failure of an affidavit to be made on personal knowledge or specify how the affiant had personal knowledge of the facts asserted is a defect in substance and need not be objected to at trial to be a ground for reversal