Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00140-CV
05-08-2018
IN RE MCALLEN ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS, P.A., DOCTORS HOSPITAL AT RENAISSANCE, LTD. D/B/A DOCTORS HOSPITAL AT RENAISSANCE, AND EDGAR ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ, M.D.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but when "denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relators McAllen Anesthesia Consultants, P.A., Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, Ltd. d/b/a Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, and Edgar Armando Rodriguez, M.D., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on March 12, 2018. Through this original proceeding, relators seek a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to vacate its order denying relators' motion to quash and to issue an order prohibiting all discovery until "all [d]efendants have been served with a proper expert report." Relators, in sum, seek to quash the deposition of their co-defendant, Roger Sims. The underlying proceeding is a health care liability suit and relators contend that this discovery violates section 74.351(s) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because they have not been served with an expert report in this case. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(s) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number C-3007-17-G in the 370th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, and the Honorable Noe Gonzalez is the respondent. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. This Court conditionally granted mandamus relief in this case. See In re McAllen Anesthesia Consultants, P.A., No. 13-17-00584-CV, 2017 WL 6492002, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 18, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
This Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real parties in interest, Jose David Sanchez, individually and as guardian of the person and estate of Arleena Mancha Sanchez and as next friend of D.A.S., a minor. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. Relators have filed a reply to the real parties' response. Relators have further filed an "Advisement to the Court Concerning Service of Expert Report on Defendant Roger Sims, CRNA." According to this pleading and the attached "Notification of Service," Sims and the other defendants in the suit have been served with the "Chapter 74 Expert Report of Jay Ellis, M.D."
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
A discovery order that compels production beyond the rules of procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy. In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when it compels discovery from a health care provider in circumstances where the health care provider is entitled to first be served with a section 74.351(a) expert report and curriculum vitae. See In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 420-21 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Sandate, No. 05-17-00871-CV, 2017 WL 4684072, at *2, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 19, 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Lumsden, 291 S.W.3d 456, 462 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding); see also In re McAllen Anesthesia Consultants, P.A., No. 13-17-00584-CV, 2017 WL 6492002, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 18, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
NORA LONGORIA
JUSTICE Delivered and filed this 8th day of May, 2018.