2005, 79th Leg., ch. 635, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1590, 1590 (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp.2008)). McCoy asserts that OGA did not object to the timeliness or sufficiency of Dr. Brewer’s reports until February 22, 2008, about one year and seven months after the twenty-one day deadline. According to McCoy, OGA’s conduct was sufficiently implicated to trigger the duty to object to the sufficiency of the expert reports bec implicated by Dr. Brewer’s reports; OGA also argues that it was under no duty to file objections to the reports within twenty-one days after service of the reports because McCoy failed to serve an expert report addressing OGA’s conduct. See Poland v. Grigore, 249 S.W.3d 607, 616 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Further, OGA asserts that McCoy’s reliance on
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 defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error 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 that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report