is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, article 4590i and the Emergency Medical Service Act do not pertain to the same subject matter. The Emer gency Medical Service Act was enacted for the purpose of facilitating “the most appropriate utilization of the skills of physicians who delegate health care tasks to qualified emergency medical service (EMS) technicians.” Tex. Admin. Code Ann. § 197.1. Article 4590i, on the other hand, was intended to alleviate the “medical malpractice insurance crisis” in Texas by modifying the way in which health care liability claims are administered by the courts. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4590i § 1.02. Therefore, the Acts have distinctly different purposes and deal with essentially different subject matter. See Lenhard v. Butler, 745 S.W.2d at 105 (<HOLDING>). Second, section 197.5(c) of the Medical
holding it is inappropriate to utilize provisions of the medical practice act to guide the courts interpretation of article 4590i holding the provisions of a comprehensive medical malpractice act unconstitutional holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it holding that the express provisions of article 4590i exclude the unsound mind tolling provision of texcivprac  remcode ann  16001a2 and b holding that circuit court should defer to supreme courts interpretation of the act