to the defendants before filing suit, not the mechanics of the service of notice. Id. at 934. “ ‘[I]t is the purpose of the Act to improve and modify the system by which health care liability claims are determined ... [and to] do so in a manner that will not unduly restrict a claimant’s right anymore than necessary to deal with the crisis.’ ... The intent of ... the Legislature was to encourage pre-suit negotiations so as to avoid excessive cost of litigation.” Schepps, 652 S.W.2d at 938. We believe that while the requirement to give notice is mandatory, the requirement that the notice be sent certified mail, return receipt requested is merely directory and is meant to “promote the proper, orderly and prompt conduct of business.” Id. at 9 7 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1966, no writ) (<HOLDING>). We hold that because appellee acknowledges
holding the notice of appearance was not a motion under rule 12b2 4 or 5 and therefore the filing of the notice constituted a voluntary appearance by the defendants in this action which was the equivalent of the service of the summons upon them holding that when a plaintiffs name and identity are used without intent to obtain a commercial advantage but where they are used for some other purpose the use is incidental and does not violate the right of publicity holding that service and notice in a technical sense are incidental where the main purpose of obtaining the appearance of parties and their participation is accomplished holding that remedy of repair and service did not fail of its essential purpose when seller provided warranty service on the product and accomplished repair holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client