that it requires them to infer the facts supporting the conclusion. But they ignore the detailed factual summary set forth in Dr. Rushing’s report. Dr. Rushing clearly details the doctors’ alleged omissions — failure to see James on a timely, regular basis — as well as the behavior which James ultimately engaged in and his ultimate diagnosis. Dr. Rushing thus clearly opines that if the doctors had seen James in the office, they would have observed the behavioral manifestations Dr. Rushing described. Moreover, as the Clinic can act only through its employees or agents, the Nicholsons’ allegations against the Clinic are likewise supported by sufficient factual detail and are therefore not eonclusory. See Benavides v. Garcia, 278 S.W.3d 794, 799 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2009, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Davisson and the Clinic contend that even
holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation holding no jurisdiction when trial court granted extension even though appellants argued expert report was so woefully deficient on necessary elements so as to constitute no report and report was missing experts curriculum vitae holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents conduct because plaintiffs alleged no directliability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twentyone days after service holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension