in their reports were the result of accident or mistake rather than conscious indifference. In Walker v. Gutierrez, we held that a report that completely omitted one of the elements required by statute could not be an accident or mistake because “a party who files suit on claims subject to article 4590i is charged with knowledge of the statute and its requirements.” Here, the plaintiffs’ attorneys are charged with knowledge that they needed an expert in hospital credentialing, and with the qualifications (or lack thereof) of Dr. Brown. Her curriculum vitae showed she was a solo family practitioner, and revealed neither experience in hospital administration nor even staff privileges at any hospital. At the hearing on the hospital’s motion to dismiss, the trial court admitted d 004) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 4590i, § 1.02
holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction holding mandamus available to protect legislative continuance recognizing in the context of a petition for a writ of mandamus that although the district court retained jurisdiction over the case following the governments mandamus petition the district court justifiably could defer trial until resolution of the appellate proceedings had the government prevailed on the merits of the mandamus petition  the trial strategies of the government as well as the defense would surely have been altered holding mandamus will lie to prevent trial court from exercising jurisdiction it does not have even if there is adequate remedy by appeal holding mandamus available to protect exclusive jurisdiction of executive agency and prevent disruption of orderly processes of government