” Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 52 (quoting Earle v. Ratliff, 998 S.W.2d 882, 890 (Tex.1999)). Furthermore, in assessing the report’s sufficiency, the trial court may not draw any inferences, and instead must rely exclusively on the information contained within the report’s four corners. See Scoresby, 346 S.W.3d at 556 (citing Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878); Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 53. B. Hillery’s objection Hillery’s objection to Dr. Goldman’s report in the trial court stated, in its entirety: Dr. Goldman’s report is inadequate because it is eonclusory and fails to provide any factual support for the opinion expressed within. Dr. Goldman states that myocardial infarction was ruled out as the cause of Mrs. Kyle’s arrest. However, Dr. Goldman fails to provide any factual supp Waco 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). C. Adequacy of report concerning causation As
holding that two general objections were insufficient to properly preserve the issue holding that when defendants only timely filed objections to expert report were that two statements were speculative defendant waived all other objections holding that failure to make repeated objections is not ineffective when such objections would not have been sustained holding that issue is preserved if the objections at the trial were sufficiently specific to notify the trial court at the time of the nature and character of the objections and the reasons for them holding that a party waived its objections on appeal to an affidavit presented in support of a motion for summary judgment by failing to raise its objections to the trial court