[14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (approving of an expert report’s explanation of the breach of the standard of care, for prescribing Risperdal because its use for treating dementia had not been approved by the FDA and concluding that a “reasonable physician should not, as a general proposition, prescribe the wrong drug for his patients”); Puempel v. Lopez, No. 05-07-00371-CV, 2007 WL 3173405, at *3-4 (Tex.App.-Dallas Oct.31, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming the use of FDA and PDR guidelines to define the standard of care for prescribing weight loss medication); Metot v. Danielson, 780 S.W.2d 283, 286-87 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1989, writ denied), overruled on other grounds by Cecil v. Smith, 790 S.W.2d 709, 716 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1990) (op. on reh’g), rev’d, 804 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.1991) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Haberer’s report indicates that he
holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it decided that a boardcertified doctor was not qualified to testify about a neurosurgeons general minimum standards for the prescription of drugs that are applicable to all physicians holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it holding that the district court abused its discretion when it decided that defense counsels determination of the wrong date by which defendant had to file a notice of appeal constituted excusable neglect holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion