overrule Haskell’s first issue. 30-Day Extension to Cure In his second issue, Haskell argues that the trial court should have allowed him 30 days to cure any deficiencies in the report. If a report is found to be deficient, the trial court may grant one 30-day extension to cure the deficiencies. Id. § 74.351(c). This rule does not apply as to either defendant in this case, however. Seven Acres did not object within 21 days of service of the report. Accordingly, any deficiencies in the report that Haskell would be required to cure as to Seven Acres have been waived. Id. § 74.351(a). In contrast, if no report is served as to a specific defendant, then that defendant’s obligation to object to the report is never triggered. Rivenes, 257 S.W.3d at 338; see also Scoresby, 346 S.W.3d at 557 (<HOLDING>). A plaintiff is not entitled to a 30-day
holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a 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 holding 30day extension may be granted if report is timely served contains opinion of individual with expertise that claim has merit and defendants conduct is implicated holding that if a deficient report is served and the trial court grants a thirtyday extension that decision is not subject to appellate review even if it is coupled with a motion to dismiss holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record is without merit