### NUM BER 13-06- 471- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
DA Y CRUISES M A RITI M E, L.L.C. A ND COR PUS C HR ISTI DA Y C RU ISE, L .L.C ., A pp ellan ts,
v. C H R I S T U S S P O H N H E AL T H S Y S T E M D / B /A CH RIST US SPOH N HOS PITA L M EM ORIA L, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es R o d rig u eza n d G arza

Op in io n b y

J u st ic e Ga rza App el la n t s D a y

Cruises Mari time , L.L .C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L. C.
a p p e a l from su mmary j udg ments g ra nted in fav or of appel lee C hr is tus Spohn H eal th Syste m d/b/ a C hr is tus Spohn H ospi tal Memor ial (“ Chr is tus ”)

. By three i ss ues, appel lan ts cont end t hat t he tr ial cour t er re d. For pur poses of org ani z ati on, appel lan ts’ is sues w il l be
re ordered and re ferred to as foll ows: ( 1) the tr ial courter re d i n g ra nti ng C hr is tus ’s moti on for s ummary

j udg ment on Chr is tus ’s co untercl aim; ( 2 ) th e t ri al cour t er re d i n g ra nti ng Christus’s mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t, an d d e n yin g app ellant s’ motio n for sum ma ryA “di s po ne nt ow ne r” of a ve s s el i s a p ers on or co m pa ny w hi c h h as co m m erc i al co ntr ol ove r a 1 v e s s e l’s o p e r a tio n w ith o u t o w n in g th e s h ip a s in a “ b a r e b o a t c h a r te r .” M

- i- lin k .c o m M a r itim e D ic tio n a r y, a v a ila b le a t ht t p: //www
. m - i

- l i nk. com / di ct i onary / de fau l t

. as p? t erm =b are bo at+c ha rt er (l as t vi s i t ed A pr. 17 , 20 08 ). A “ bar eboatchar t er ” i s a t y pe o fchar t eri n w hi c h t he sh i pownerpr ov i des o nl y t he sh i p an d gi v es t he char t er er— i n t hi s case, D ayC r ui ses M ar i t i m e, L. L. C

. — com pl et e con t r ol , m anage m ent and ope r at i on o ft he v e s s e l fo r th e a g re e d l e a s i n g p e rio d

. I d. 2 jud g ment, on appe ll ant’ s p lea i n i nter v enti on; a nd ( 3) the tr ial co urt dep ri v ed appe ll ants of d u e p ro c e s s o f l a w
. W e a ffi r m t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s j u d g me n t i n p a rt , re v e rs e i n p a rt , and
rema nd for f urthe r proceed ings. I. B A CKGRO UND Judy Ann Lanado, a ci ti z en of t he Phi ll ipp ine s, w as employ ed as a c ard deal er on the “ M/ V TEX AS TREASU RE ,” a cas ino v ess el operati ng out of PortAransas , Tex as. D ay Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. was the dispo nen t owner of the v essel. The v essel w as jointly 1
ma naged and ope rated byFlorida Day Cruises, Inc. an d Corpus Christi Day C ruise, L.L .C. W hil e wor ki ng on t he v ess el in Aug ustof 2002, Lanado, w ho w a s p re gna n t at t he ti me, became il l. Sh e w as firs t t aken to a hospi tal i n Aransas Pas s, Tex as, and w as then mov ed to Chr is tus in Cor pus Chr is ti on Aug ust21, 2002, and admi tted there w it h a d iag nosi s o f ch o l e l i t h i a s i s , o r s t o n e s i n t h e g a l l b l a d d e r
. U p o n h e r a d mi s s i o n t o C h r i s tus , Lan ado signed a do cum ententitle d “Release of Informa tion a nd Assignm ent of Health In suran ce Ben ef its” that provided a s follows: 1. I aut hor iz e CHR ISTUS Spohn to a) submit thi s cl aim on my behal f and b) re cei v e pay ment of anyauthori z ed bene fits, i ncl udi ng benefit s p ay abl e for any physi ci a n (s) s e rv ic es due t hose phy si ci ans under co ntractto the hosp ital. 2. I certif

y t hatt he informa tion I have f urnishe d to the Re gistration O f f ice is cor re ct. 3. I g uarantee pay m e n t for al l ser v ic es, i ncl udi ng thos e notco v ered by ins urance, M edi cai d or M edi care. 4. I hereby author iz e my ins urance benefits to be pai d dire ct ly to the physi ci an render ing ca re of abov e named pati ent, for th eir professi onal serv ices, an d I am f inan cially respon sible for non -cov ered serv ices. 5. I aut h o rize t h e p h ysic ian or su ppl ier of care to re lea se any or al l of the pati ent’ s medi cal record req uired for pay ment. T h is i ncl udes the o rd er ingJaspe rLan ado or i gi nal l y br oughtsui t i n hi s capa ci t y as per m anentgua r di an of J ud y Ann La nado 2 and as next f r i end of Judy ’ s t wo m i nor daugh t er s, Joy z e Ann Dani el l e La nado and M i t z e Fr anchet t e La nado. T he r ecor d al so r ef l ect s t hat at som e poi nt t her eaft er , JudyA nn Lanado ’ s m ot her , A nunci aci on Si er r a, al so b e c a m e a n a m e d p l a i n ti ff

. T h e p l a i n ti ff s w i l l b e re fe rr e d to c o l l e c ti v e l y a s “th e L a n a d o s .” 3 and results of

HIV testing and /or the diagnosis of AIDS, an d psyc h ia tric dis orders o r treatment. On A ug ust23, 2002, Paul a E. C oots , a “h um a n r e so u rc e as si sta nt” for Texas Treas ure, s ig ned a documententitl ed “Guarantee of Pay ment ( Und er Secti on 253 of the Im migration a nd Nat iona lity Act).” The form sta ted as follows: I, Pau la E. Coot s, as Hum an Reso urce Assistant of the v essel or aircraf t MV T EXAS TRE ASURE em plo yin g the alien crew ma n LANA DO, JUDY ANN w ho upon ar ri v al at t he por t of PT. A RA NS AS , T X on 2 1 AU GU ST 02 was found to be aff li cte d w it h, or su spected o f being aff li cted w it h GA LL BLAD DE R. I hereby

g uarantee to pa y

any and all ex pense s i ncur re d or to be i ncur re d for the h ospi tal iz ati on, c are, an d treatment, and for bur ial i n the ev ent o f death, of the s aid al ien crew man. Fol low ing su rg er

y at Chr is tus to treat her g all bladder condit ion , Lanado dev elo ped int er nal bl eedi ng i n her abdomen that le d to tac hy cardia and hy potens ion

. As a resul t of the se com plication s, the fetu s died and Lan ado suf fered sev ere brain dam age due to lack
o f oxygen . On o r ab o u t S e p te m b e r 27 , 2 0 0 2 , s h e la p se d in to a ce re b ra l co m a . A lt h o u gh she re cov ered from h e r cholel it hia si s c ondi ti on, t he c erebral coma l eft Lanado in a per manent v eg etati v e s tate. Lan ado remain e d a t Chr is tus unti l her transfer to Av alo n Pl ace, a nu rs ing home, on Octobe r 1, 20 03. Her treatment at C hr is tus l ast ed ov er thi rt een months and re sul ted i n tot al medic al charg es of $1,089,9 59.82. On D ecember

31, 2002, Jas per

Lanado , Judy ’s brother and per manent g uardia n, filed a he alt h c are l iab il ity cl aim ag ain st Ch ri stu s all eg ing that Chr is tus w as neg li g ent i n i ts
care of Judy

. Sp eci fical ly , t he Lana dos a ss e rt ed th at, w hil e J udy Ann Lanado w as at 2 Christus, she “was ignored by physi cians and staf f to a de gree falling below the sta nda rd of care nec ess ary a s re qui red by Tex as law” and t hat “ [t] hese act s a nd omi ss ion s prox imat ely

ca used the inju ry

to Pl ain ti ffs.” C hr is tus fil ed i ts or ig ina l answer to the Lan ado s’ suit on Jan uary 31, 200 3, de nying all allegations.C hr i st us f i l ed a n am ended coun t er cl ai m aga i ns t T ex as T rea sur e on D ecem ber31, 200 3. T he 3 am ended coun t er cl ai m was Chr i st us’ s act i v e pl eadi ng a t t he t i m e t hat t he t r i al cour t gr ant ed i t s m ot i on f or sum m arj udgm ent

. H owev er , we wi l l r ef er her e t o C hr i st us’ s am ended count er cl ai m as i t s “ count er cl ai m ” f or pur poses ofconv eni ence.

As di scussed f ul l y her ei n, gener al m ar i t i m e l aw pr ov i des t hat a shi powner m ust pay“ m ai nt enance 4 a n d c u re ” to a s e a m a n w h o is in ju re d o r b e c o m e s il l w h i l e in th e s e rv i c e o f a s h i p
. M ar i tim e O ver

seas Cor

p. v
. W ai t ers , 917 S. W

. 2d 1 7, 18 ( T ex. 199 6) ( ci t i ng Vaughn v. Atkinson , 369 U

. S. 529 ( 1961) and G uevar a v. M ar itim e O v ers ea s C orp
. , 5 9 F .3 d 1 4 9 6 , 1 4 9 9 (5 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ))

. T h e i n ju re d o r i l l s e a m a n i s e n ti tl e d to m a i n te n a n c e a n d c u re b e n e fit s re g a rd l e s s o f w h e th e r th e s h i p o w n e r w a s a t fa u l t. W ai t ers , 917 S. W

. 2d a t 18. 4 On N ov ember

14, 2003, Day

C ru is es Ma ri ti me, L.L .C ., Flor ida D ay C ru is es, Inc ., and C or pus Chr is ti D ay C ru is e, L. L.C . ( col lecti v ely referred to as “ Tex as Treas ure” ) filed a pl ea i n i nter

v enti on i n the Lanados ’ lawsui t, sta ti ng first that under g eneral mari ti me l aw iti s potenti all y

respo nsi ble as Judy ’s employ er for pay ing her

medi cal ex pense s, but t hat itw as enti tl ed to damag es from the Lanados on th e the or y thati t was eq uit abl y

su brog ated to th e La nad os for those med ical ex pen ses. T exas Trea sure f iled an ame nde d plea in int er v enti on on Nov ember

21, 2003, addi ng a re q uest for decl arator y j udg ment t hat Texas Treas ure was not obli g ated to payChr is tus for Lanado’s m edi cal care. On N ov ember 25, 2003, Tex as Treas ure fil ed a tradi ti onal moti on for s ummary j udg ment bas ed on it s p lea in int er v enti on. Chr is tus subseq uentl y

f il ed a count ercl aim ag ain st Tex as Treas ure, c ontendi ng that Tex as Treas ure w as sol ely re spons ibl e for pay ing Lanado ’s hos pit al bil l. C hr is tus fil ed a 3
mo tion for sum ma ry

judgmen t on th e cou nte rclaim on Octob er 14, 200 5. T he co unt erclaim and t he moti on for summar y j udg ment as ser

ted t hat Tex as Treas ure was re spons ibl e for the e nti re ty

of Lanado’ s h ospi tal bi ll as a matt er of law , for three reason s: ( 1) C hr is tus had
a v ali d s uiton a swor n accountand Tex as Treas ure had faile d to file an effectiv e v er ified deni al, see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 65; ( 2) Tex as Treas ure had execut ed a v ali d g uarantee of pay ment w it h respect t o Lanad o’s medi cal ex pense s; and (3 ) Tex as Treas ure had a duty of pay ment t o Lanad o as a matter of law , and Lanado had effect iv ely as si g ned t o C hr is tus h e r r ig h t s co rre s p o n d in g t o t h a td u ty. 4 On or aboutD ecember 2003, the L anados se ttl ed th eir cl aim ag ain st Chr is tus

. As par t of the settl ement ag re ement, Chr is tus ag re ed to pay a l ump sum, and fund an annui tyN ei t herpar t y adv i ses t hi s C our t of t he e xact am ount ( s) w hi ch C hr i st us agr eed t o pay t he L anado s 5 pur suantt o t hei r set t l em ent agr eem ent

. M or eov er , t he dol l ar am ount s of t he set t l em ent ar e r edact ed i n t he copyof t he a gr eem ent i n t he r ecor d t hat i s r ef er enced byC hr i st us. C hr i st us no t es t hat t hi s assi gnm ent w as m er el y a “ r at i f i cat i on” of Lan ado’ s ear l i erassi gnm ent of her 6 m ai nt enance and cur e be nef i t s t o Chr i st us as ev i denced byt he “ R el ease ofI nf or m at i on a nd Assi gnm ent of H eal t h I nsur ance Benef i t s” t hat Lan ado si gned upon heradm i ssi on t o Chr i st us.

T h e tr ia l c o u r t e n te r e d w r itt e n in te r lo c u t o r y o r d e r s o n A p r il 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , d e n yin g T e x a s T r e a s u r e ’s 7 m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t, a n d o n M a y 3 , 2 0 0 4 , g ra n ti n g C h ris tu s ’ s m o ti o n f o r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t a s to al l of T ex as T rea s ure ’ s affi rm ati ve c l ai m s for r el i ef. 5 that w oul d prov ide per iod icpay ments to t he Lana dos. Ata h e a ri ng on D ecember 13, 5 2003, Jas per

Lanado and the g uardia n ad li tem for the tw o mi nor ch il dren te sti fied th at t he settl ement ag re ement was fair and in the b est

i nterest s o f Lanado and her famil y
. The tr ial
cour t ent ered an ag re ed j udg ment on Apr il 7, 2004, approv ing the settl ement ag re ement. Nei ther the settl ement ag re ement no r the a g re ed judgment cont ain ed an admis si on of neg li gen ce o r li abi li ty

on t he par

t of C hr is tus

. In fact , t he ag re ed j udg ment s tated spec ific all y

that“ [t] he Co u rti s fur ther of the o pin ion thatthe li abi li ty of the D efendant [C hr is tus ] i s u ncer

tai n, do ubtful, i ndefini te, and di sput ed.” As par t of the settl ement, the Lanados a g re e d t o a s s i g n t o C h r i s t u s t h e i r r i g h tt o s e e kre c o v e r y o f J u d y ’ s medi cal expense s f rom h er em ployer. 6 Mean w hile, th e claims b etween T exas Trea sure and Christus rema ined pen ding in the trial court. Both Te x as T reasu re and Christus f iled traditio nal m otion s for sum ma ry jud g ment w it h respect t o the cl aims made by Tex as Treas ure i n i ts plea i n i nter v enti on. Tex as Treas ure arg ued t hat i t was enti tl ed to summary judg ment on it s plea in i nter v enti on becau se, as a matt er

of law , i t was eq uit abl y su brog ated to t he amount s recei v ed by the Lanados under

thei r settl ement ag re e ment; Chr is tus arg ued t hat Texas law prov ide s n o such rem edy and so th ose claim s mustfail as a ma tter of law . Af ter a he aring on March 26, 2 004, the t ri al co u rt deni ed Tex as Treas ure’s moti on for summar y j udg ment and gran te d C hr i s tu s ’ s mo ti on for s um ma r y j ud g me nt as to Texas Trea s ure’ s c l ai ms in their ple a i n i nter

v enti on. 7 After a hear ing on M arch 3, 20 06, t he tr ial cour t g ra nted Chr is tus ’s moti on forC h r is tu s n o te s c o r r e c tly th a t th e d o c u m e n t w ith w h ic h T e x a s T r e a s u r e w a s n o t s e r v e d w a s a c tu a lly 8 enti t l ed “C ou nter-Pl ai nti ff C hri s t us S po hn H ea l t h S y s t em ’ s R ep l yt o R es po ns e o f I nterven ors [ T ex as T r easur e] t o M ot i on f orSum m ar y Judg m ent of C hr i st us on C ount er cl ai m Agai nst I nt er v enor s and C hr i st us’ [ s] Suppl em ent t o M ot i on f orSum m ar y Judg m ent

. ” Forbr ev i t y ’ s sa k e, w e wi l l r ef ert o t hi s docu m ent as C h ris tu s ’ s “S u p p l e m e n ta l M o ti o n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t.”

T e x a s T r e a s u r e a ls o f ile d a n O b j e c tio n to E n tr y o f J u d g m e n t, c o n te n d in g th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t s h o u ld 9 n o t e n te ra ju d g m e n t b a s e d o n its r u lin g a t th e h e a r in g o fM a r c h 3 , 2 0 0 6 , u n til s u c h t im e a s T e x a s T r e a s u r e ’s r esponse t o C hr i st us’ s Suppl em ent al M ot i on f or Sum m ar y Judgm ent coul d be co nsi der ed. T hi s was gr ant ed byt he t r i al cour t at t he h ear i ng o fM ay3, 200 6.

T he M ay26, 2006 f i nal j udgm ent al so m em or i al i z ed t he t r i al cour t ’ s pr ev i ous r ul i ngs: ( 1) den y i ng 10 T exas T r easur e’ s m ot i on f orl eav e t o f i l e i t s f our t h am ended answert o Chr i st us’ s coun t er cl ai m ; ( 2) den y i ng T exas T r easur e’ s m ot i on f orsanct i ons; ( 3) par t i al l y gr ant i ng T exas T r easur e’ s m ot i on f orl eav e t o f i l e a r e s p o n s e to C h r is tu s ’s S u p p l e m e n ta l M o tio n f o rS u m m a r y J u d g m e n t; a n d ( 4 ) g r a n tin g T e x a s T r e a s u r e ’s O b je c ti o n to E n try o f J u d g m e n t. 6 summar y j udg ment w it h resp ectto it s c ountercl aim ag ain st Tex as Treas ure, find ing i n fav or of C hr i s tu s o n al l t hree g rou nd s a s s er te d i n i ts c ou nt erc l ai m. Pr ior to the M arch 3, 20 06 hear ing , howev er , C hr is tus had filed a S uppl emental Mo ti on for Summary

Ju dg ment w hic h i ncl uded an att or ney ’s fees affidav itt hat h ad not been fil ed w it h any

prev iou s mot ion

. This Su p ple mental M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment
w as apparentl y

not ser v ed upon Tex as Treas ure’s tr ial co unsel

. Af ter the Ma rc h 3, 2006 8 hear ing , hav ing di sc ov ered th at t hey w ere not ser v ed w it h Chr is tus ’s Suppl emental M oti on fo r S u m m a ry J u d gm e n t , T e xa s T re a s u re f il e d a m o t io n fo r s a n ct io n s a n d a m o t io n fo r l e a ve to fil e a respon se to the suppl emental moti on. After an addi ti onal hear ing on Ma y 3, 2006, the t ri al co u rtd e n ied Tex as Treas ure’s moti on for sancti ons, but par ti all y g ra nted Tex as T reasu re ’s m o tion for leave to f ile a respon se to th e Sup plem ent al Motion for Sum ma ry J u d gm e n t , st a t in g t h a titco u ld f il e a re s p o n s e wit h re ga rd t o a tt o rn e y’s fe e s o n ly. 9 The tr ial co urt rendered i ts w ri tten f in a l ju d gment on M ay 26, 2006, aw ardin g Christus dam ages and pre-judgme nt inte rest in the sum o f $1,2 72, 714 .68 . Te x as T reasu re
w as als o ordered to pay $49, 518.68 to C hr is tus i n att or ney ’s f e e s, al ong w it h anot her $25 ,00 0 in atto rney’s fees u pon an unsucce ssf ul app eal by Texas Trea sure to th is Court and $10 ,000 in attor ney ’s fees upo n an unsuc ces sful appeal by Tex as Treas ure to the Tex as Supreme C our

t. The tr ial courtspeci fical ly st ated in it s o rd er

thatC hr is tus ’s moti on 10 for s ummary

j udg ment:7

[I] s me r i to r i ou s a nd s ho ul d be g ran te d on a l l g rou nd s , s pe c i fi c al l y , a v alid swor n ac countw it hout effect iv e v er ified deni al; Guarantee of P ay ment und er the I mmig ra ti on and Nat ion ali ty Act, 8 C .F .R . §25 3.1( a) ex ecut ed bythe M /V Tex as Treas ure; duty

of pay ment of the medic al ex pense s o f Judy Lanado under the Immig ra ti on and Nat ion ali ty Act, 8 C .F .R . §25 3.1( e) , and the executed Assignmen t of Bene f its. Ne it h e r p a rt y re qu e s t e d f in d in gs o f fa cto r c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w. On M ay 23, 2006, Fl or ida Day Cr uis es, Inc ., filed a sug g est ion of bankr uptcy w it h the trial court, statin g tha t the c o m p a n y h a d f iled a voluntary petition for Chapt er 7 b a n kruptcy

protecti on i n F lor ida on J anuar y 18, 2005. See1 1 U

. S

. C

. § § 7 0 1 –784. Fol low ing thi s d ev elo pment, Chr is tus fil ed an unoppos ed moti on on Jul y 27, 2006 to s ev er it s cl aim ag ain st Fl or ida Day Cr uis es, Inc

. The tr ial cour t g ra nted the moti o n by w rit ten orde r on Sep tem ber 22 , 200 6. Florida Day Cruises, Inc., is not a party to this app eal. Appel lan ts filed their

“M oti on for Rec onsi derati on and Mo ti on for New Tri al” on J une 23, 2 006, w hic h was ov er ru led by operati on of l aw

on A ug ust9, 2006. SeeT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b( c)

. Appel lan ts filed thei r Not ic e of Appeal on Augu st 24, 2006. This appeal ens ued. II. J URI S DI CT I ON On ap pea l, app ellant s f irst assert thatw e ha v e no jurisd ic t io n t o conside r this appeal , c ontendi ng thatthe jud g ment i ss ued on Ma y 26, 2 006 was v oid abl e and not fin al beca use it w as rend ered not only against appe llants but also againstFlorida Day Cruises, Inc ., w hic h had prev iou sl y f il ed for bankr uptcy
. See 11 U .S.C . § 362( a) ; In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 35 S.W .3d 6 02, 6 04 ( 2000) ( sta ti ng that“ w hen a defendant fil es a bank ru ptcy peti ti on, an a uto ma tic st ay goes into ef fect an d ab ate s any j udicial proce edin g against th at pa rty .”). Al thoug h the auto mati c s tay w oul d operate onl y ag ain st the b ankr uptcy debt or , F lor ida D ay Cr uis es, and not a g ain st a p pel lan ts, see id. , app ell ants co ntend that the M ay 26, 2006 jud g me n t was voi dabl e as to appel lan ts becau se the c our t’ s o rd er of sev erance as to Fl or ida D ay

C ru is es w a s n o t e n te re d unt il Sept ember 14, 2006, w hic h, ac cordin g to appel lee s, w as after the c our t’ s p len aryj ur is dicti on had ex pired. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b( e) ( p ro vidi ng thata t ri al cour t’ s p len ar

y power to modify

a j udg ment ex pires thi rtyW e n o te th a t a p p e l l a n ts fi l e d th e i r n o ti c e o f a p p e a l o n A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , w h i c h w a s p rio r to th e d a te 11 t ha t w e c on s i de r t he t ri al co urt ’ s jud gm en t to h ave b ec om e fi na l

. A pp el l an t s ’ no t i c e o f ap pe al w as t he refore p re m a tu re l y fi l e d

. H o w e v e r, T e x a s R u l e o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re 2 7 .1 (a ) p ro v i d e s th a t “[i ]n a c i v i l c a s e , a pr em at ur el y f i l ed n ot i ce ofappeal i s eff ect i v e and deem ed f i l ed on t he dayof , but af t er , t he ev ent t hat beg i ns th e p e ri od for pe rfec t i ng t he ap pe al

. ” T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 27

. 1(a ). Ap pe l l an t s ’ no t i c e o f ap pe al i s t he refore d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n fi l e d o n S e p te m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , a fte r th e tri a l c o u rt e n te re d i ts o rd e r o f s e v e ra n c e w i th r espectt o Fl or i da Day C r ui ses, I nc. 8 days a fter a ny

ti mely-fil ed moti ons for new tr ial are ov er ru led ); Hoo d v. Am ar il lo Nat ’ l Bank, 815 S. W .2d 5 45, 5 47 ( T e x . 199 1) ( sta ti ng that“ [a] summar y j udg ment w hic h does not dispo se of

all p a rt ies and issues in the pen ding suit is i nte rlocuto ry and not ap pea lable
un l es s a s ev eran c e i s o rde red .” )

. H owev er , as a pp el l an ts s ee m t o ha v e s ubse quently
re cog niz ed, thi s arg ument is sens ele ss
. The onl y w ay the tr ial cour t’ s p len ar

y j ur is dicti on coul d hav e ex pired pr ior to the e ntrance of the s ev erance order i s if the Ma y 26, 2006 jud g ment was in fact final and subj ect to appeal

. If, as appel lan ts arg ue, the Ma y 26, 2 006 judgme nt w as inte rlocuto ry and not ap pea lable, t hen t he trial co urt’s p lena ry ju risdiction did not e x pire and the o rd er of sev erance w as v ali d, rende ri ng the M ay 26, 2006 j udg ment final
w it h respect t o appel lan ts. W e c oncl ude t hat t he M ay 26, 2006 j udg ment bec a m e final
u p o n t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s o rd e r o f se ve ra n c e o n S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 6

. W e t h e re fo re h a ve 11 jurisdiction to conside r this appe al. III . S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s g ra nt or

deni al of a tradi ti onal moti on for summar y j udg ment under a de nov o standard of

rev iew

. Cr

editwatch, Inc. v. Ja ck

son , 157 S.W .3d 8 14, 8 16
n .7 (T e x. 2 0 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Schn eider Nat’ l Car ri er s, Inc . v . Ba tes , 147 S.W .3d 264, 290 n.13 7 (Tex . 2004)) ; Alan iz

v. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 3 30, 3 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.) ; see als o Md

. Cas

. Co. v. S. Tex. Med. Cli nics, P.A. , No

. 1 3 -0 6 -0 8 9 -C V , 2 0 0 8 T e x. App . LEXIS 27 9, at*9-11 (T ex. App.– Corpus Christi Jan. 1 0, 200 8, pet . f iled) (mem . op. ). The functi on of summar y j udg ment i s t o el imi nate patent ly u n m e rito ri ous cl aims and defenses, not to de pr iv e l it ig ants of the r ig ht t o a tr ial byj ur y
. Tex. D ep’

t of Par ks & Wildli fe
v. Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d 2 17, 2 28 ( Tex . 200 4) ; Alan iz , 105 S.W .3d a t 345

. T o ob tain relief

v ia a traditio nal m otion for sum ma ry judgmen t, the m o v antmust9

est abl is h tha t no mater ial fact i ss ue ex is ts and t hat i t i s enti tl ed to jud g ment as a matt er of law

. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ; Sw. Elec. P o we r Co. v. Gr ant , 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T e x. 2 0 0 2); Mowb ray v. Avery, 76 S.W .3d 6 63, 6 90 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. den ied). Af

ter the m ovant prod uces evidence suf f icient to sho w

it is ent itled to summ ary jud g ment, the non-mov ant must then pres ent ev ide nce ra is ing a facti ss ue. See Walk er v. Harris , 924 S.W .2d 375 , 377 (T ex. 19 96). In decid ing w het her the re is a dispute d fact is s u e t h a t p re c l u d e s s u mm a r y j u d g me n t , e v i d e n c e fa v o ra b l e t o t h e n o n - mo v a n t w il l be tak en as tr ue. Ni

xon v. Mr

. Pr op. M gm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 54 6 , 5 4 8 -4 9 (T ex. 1985 )). Evi den ce favorable to th e mo v ant , howev er, w ill notbe con sidered unles s i tis
u n c o n t ro v e rt ed. Gr

eat A m . R eser

ve Ins . C o. v

. Sa n Antoni

o Plum bin g Supp ly

C o. , 391 S.W .2d 41 , 4 7 ( T ex. 1965 ). M oreo v er, every reason able inferen ce mu st be ind ulged in fav or of the n on- mov ant a nd any doubt s res olv ed in i ts fav or
. Ni xon , 690 S.W .2d a t 549

. W h e n b o t h p a rt i e s mo v e fo r s u mm a r y j u d g me n t a n d t h e t r i a l c o u rt g ra n ts one mo tion a nd d enie s the ot her, th e ap pellat e c o u rtshou ld rev iew both parties’ sum ma ry jud g ment ev ide nce and det er mine all q uest ion s p re sent ed. See F M Pr ops. Oper

ati ng C o. v. City of Austin , 22 S.W .3d 8 68, 8 72 ( Tex . 200 0) ; W ar ra ntech Cor

p. v. Steadf

ast Ins . C o. , 210 S.W .3d 7 60, 7 65 (Te x
. App .–Fo rt W orth 200 6, no pet .). T he review ing court shou ld
re nder the jud g ment t hat t he tr ial co urt s houl d hav e rendered. See FM Props. , 22 S.W .3d at 87 2; W

arrante ch , 210 S.W .3d at 765. In re v iew ing a summar y j udg ment, w e c onsi der all g ro unds present ed to the tr ial co urt and preser v ed on appeal in the i nterestof jud ic ial
econo my
. Diversicare Gen. Partne r, Inc. v. Rubio , 185 S.W .3d 842, 846 (Tex . 200 5) ( ci ti ng Pr ovi dent Lif e & Accide nt Ins. C o. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 1 6 ( T e x. 2 003) and Ci nci nnati Li fe Ins. C o. v

. Cates , 927 S.W .2d 623 , 626 (Tex. 1996 )). IV. C HRI S TU S ’ S C O U N T E R C L AI M By the ir first issue, appe llants arg ue that th e trial court erred in granting Christus’s moti on for summar

y jud g ment on i ts count ercl aim ag ain st Tex as Treas ure. W e ag re e. As not ed a bo v e, t he t r i al c ou rt g ran te d C hr i s tu s ’ s s um ma r y j ud g me nto n i ts c ou nt erc l ai m,O n appeal , C hr i st us r ef er s t o a docum ent ent i t l ed “ St andar d T er m s and C ondi t i ons G ov er ni ng t he 12 Em pl oy m ent o f F i l i pi no Seaf ar er s O n Boar d O cean G oi ng Vessel s, ” whi ch i ncl uded a pr ov i si on t hat t he em pl oy erof

an i nj ur ed o r i l l s ea m an s hal l be l i abl e f ort he f ul l cost of t he se am an’ s hosp i t al and m edi cal expense s. However , beca use Chr i st us pr ov i ded no e v i dence t hat t hese “ St andar d T er m s and C ondi t i ons” w e r e a c tu a lly a p p lic a b le to L a n a d o ’s e m p lo ym e n t w ith T e x a s T r e a s u r e , w e d o n o t c o n s id e rth is to b e a v a lid basi s upo n whi ch Chr i st us’ s sum m ar y j udgm ent m ayhav e be en g r ant ed. 10 findi ng thatTex as Treas ure was li abl e for Lanado’ s e nti re hos pit al bill b a se d on t hree dis ti nct g ro unds: (1 ) a v ali d swor n acc ount w it hout an effect iv e v er ified deni al; (2 ) Tex as Treas ure’s g uarantee of pay ment und er the Immig ra ti on and Nat ion ali ty Act; and ( 3) Tex as T reasu re’s duty of

paying ben ef its und er t he d octrine of main ten ance and cure in conju nction w ith La nad o’s alleged assignm entof ben ef its to Christus. 12 A
. Christus’s Suit on a Sw orn Account The ess enti al ele ments to prov e a s w or n ac countare: ( 1) thatthere w as a s ale and delivery of merch and ise or performa nce o f serv ices; (2) that the am oun t of the acco untis just, th at is, tha tt h e p rice s w ere cha rg ed in acco rdan ce w ith an agreeme nt or w ere cus tomar

y and re asona ble pr ic es; and (3 ) that the a mo u n t is u n p a id

. Adam s v . H & H Meat Prods., Inc. , 41 S.W .3d 762, 773 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, no pet .) ; W or ley
v. Butler , 8 0 9 S

. W

. 2 d 24 2 , 24 5 ( Te x
. A p p
. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 1 9 9 0 , n o w r i t )

. W h e n a p l a i n t i ff prese nts prim a facie evidence of an acco untthrough sw orn test imo ny, the defend antmust file a proper v er ified deni al if it w is hes to c hal len g e the v ali dity or amount of the ac count

. SeeT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 85; see als o T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 93 ( “A pl eadi ng se tti ng up a ny of the follo w ing m a tt e rs, unlessthe tr uth o f such matters a ppear of re cord, s hal l be v er ified by aff ida v it

. . . . ( 10) A d eni al of an acc ount w hic h i s t he foundati on of the pla int iff’s a cti on, a nd supp orted byaf

f idavit.”). Appel lan ts arg ue th at t he tr ial co urt erred in granti ng Chr is tus ’s su mmary j udg ment
on s w or n ac countg ro unds for th re e re asons : (1 ) Chr is tus ’s sui t on a swor n acc ount w as not mai ntai nabl e as a matter of law ; ( 2) if the s uitw as proper ly mai ntai nabl e as a s uiton a sw orn acco unt , app ellant s conte nd th at th eir v erif ied de nial w as ef fective; and (3) i f app ellant s’ v erif ied de nial w as inef fective, app ellant s c o nte nd th at th ey w ere imp rope rly den ied th e op portu nity to am end their answer to prov ide an ef fective v erif ied de nial.11

1. Vali di ty

o f Ch rist us’ s Su ito n a Sw or n Accou ntas a M atte r o f Law Chr is tus produce d s ummary j udg ment ev ide nce show ing th a t it prov ide d medi cal
ser v ic es to J udy

Ann Lanado, thatthe amounts c h a rg ed were reason abl e, an d tha t t he amount is unpaid, thereby prese nti ng pri ma faci e ev ide nce suffici ent t o s ust ain a s uiton a sw orn accou nt. Ne v erthe less, ap pellan ts claim th at Christus’s suit w as no t ma intain able
as a matt er

of law , for two re asons
. F irst, appel lan ts cl aim that there mustbe a sa le and purchas e of personal proper ty to sus tai n a s uiton a swor n ac count , and thatthere was no suc h ex chang e here. W e di sag re e. Deb ts inc ur re d as a re sul t of the prov is ion of medic al
ser v ic es maybe e n forced by a s uiton a swor n ac count

. See , e.g ., Andrew s v. E. Tex. Med. Ctr. , 885 S.W .2d 264, 26 8 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1994, no w ri t) ; Br

yant v. M is si on Mun. Hos p. , 575 S.W .2d 1 36, 1 37 (Tex

. Ci v . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1978, no w ri t) ; Leyen deck er v. San ta Rosa Med. Ctr. , 533 S.W .2d 868 , 868 -70 (Te x . Civ . App .–T y ler 1976 , no wr it). Seco nd, a ppel lan ts cl aim that they are “ strang ers t o the ac count ” becau se there was no credi tor-d ebtor re lat ion shi p between appel lan ts and Chr is tus

. Howev er , app ell ants do notcite any au tho rity

in dicatin g tha t such a relation ship is n ecessa ry to the main ten ance of a sui t on a s w or n ac count

. As suc h, t hat a rg ument was in a d eq uatel y br iefed and therefore waiv ed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(h). 2. Ef fi cacy o f Texa s T reasu re’s Sw or n Den ial Appel lan ts next con te n d t h at, ev en i f Chr is tus ’s su iton a swor n ac countw as ma intain able as a ma tter of law , sum ma ry

ju dgme nt on tha t groun d w as imp rope r becau se appel lan ts filed an e ffect iv e s w or n deni al. SeeT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 18 5. T exas Trea sure’s third amended or ig ina l answer to Chr is tus ’s co untercl aim, w hic h was th e l ive pleadi ng at the ti me the tr ial co urt c onsi dered C hr is tus ’s moti on for su m m ar y j udg ment, cont ain ed an
a f f id a vit e x ecut ed by

Tex as Treas ure’s tr ial co unsel w hic h read i n rele v ant p art t he fo llo wing: On this day perso nally app eare d before me, the und ersigned no tary pub lic, JAM ES F

. BU CH AN AN , w ho sta ted he is the a ttor ney for I nter v enors [ Tex as12

Treas u re], a nd th at he has read Pa ra g ra ph I. A. V er ified D eni al of Inter v enors[’ ] Thi rd Amended Answer in t he abov e s ty led and numbered cause ; and thatev ery st ate me nt th erein is true an d correct w ithin his personal kn ow led g e or u po n in fo rma ti on an d bel ief

. (E mphasi s a dded.) The tr ial co urt, in aw ardin g su mmary j udg me n t on swor n ac countg ro unds to Ch ri s t u s , fo u n d t h is swo rn d e n ia l t o b e in e f fe ct ive

. W e a gre e t h a tT e xa s T re a s u re ’s li ve s wo rn d e n ia l wa s in e f

fe ct ive

. An a f

f id a vitwh ic h d o e s n o tp o s it ive ly an d un qu alifiedly
re presentthe facts as dis cl osed in the aff ida v it to be tr ue and w it hin the aff ian t’ s p ersonal know led g e i s l eg all y

i n vali d. Humphre ys v. Caldwe ll , 888 S.W .2d 4 69, 4 70 ( Tex . 199 4) (e mphasi s a dded) ; see Fed. Fi n. C o. v . D elg ado , 1 S.W .3d 1 81, 1 84 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1999, no p et.)

. In t he c ontext of a s uiton a swor n ac count , c our ts hav e h e ld the
v er ified deni al re q uired by Rule 185 must str ictl y

comply w it h the req uirements of Rul e 93
re g ardin g v er ified pl eas. See B ro wn v. Sta rr ett , 684 S. W .2d 1 45, 1 47 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christi 1984 , no wr it); Edinbur g Meat Pr

ods. C o. v

. Ve rn on C o. , 5 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d 4 3 2 , 4 3 5 (T e x. Ci v . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1976, no w ri t)

. Rul e 93, w hic h s ets forth requirements for t he veri f ic ati on of v ar iou s p lea s, spec ific all y per mits so me v er ified pl eadi ng s t o be based on “informa tion a nd b elief .” See, e.g., T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 93( 8) (d eni al of the g enui nenes s o f the indo rseme nt or assignme nt of a w ritten instrume nt); 93(13) (den ial of plea dings in app eals to t he Tex as W or kers’ Compensat ion Commis si on) ; 93(15)(deni al of all eg ati ons in sui ts ag ain st automobi le ins urance compani es)

. Howev er , Rul e 93( 10) , app li cabl e to the d eni al of a sworn acco unt , doe s not permit v erif ication base d on “i nforma tion a nd b elief”; rather, itreq uires v er ific ati on unq ual ified ly based on the aff ian t’ s pers onal know led g e. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 9 3( 10) ; see Ga yne v. Dua l-Air, Inc. , 600 S.W .2d 3 73, 3 74- 75 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–H oust on [14 th Dist.] 19 80, no w rit) (f inding an af f iant’s de nial of

a sworn account “to the bestof his know led g e” to be i neffect iv e)

. The tr ial co urt di d noter r in ru li ng thatthe swor n deni al cont ain ed i n Tex as Treas ure’s thi rd amended answer w as ine ffect iv e. 3. Trial Court’s Denia l of Texa s Treas ure’s Motion for Leav e to File Fourth A men ded A nsw er t o Ch rist us’ s C ou nt ercl aimI n sup por t of t hi s ar gum ent , C hr i st us not es t hat T exas T r easur e was pr ev i ousl y per m i t t ed t o f i l e a 13 second am ended answer t o C hr i st us’ s count er cl ai m fo rt he expr ess pur pose ofaddi ng an eff ect i v e v er i f i ed de ni al

. Aft er C hri s t us am en de d i ts c o u n te rc l ai m , ho w eve r, T ex as T rea s ure res po nd ed by fi l i ng a t hi rd a m e n d e d a n s w e rw h ic h c o n ta in e d th e d e f e c tiv e d e n ia l. 13 Fi nal ly , app ell ants arg ue th at, ev en if thei r li v e swor n deni al w as ine ffect iv e, t he tr ial court erred in denying the m lea v e to f ile a fourth ame nde d a n s wer to Christus’s counter cl aim to c ontai n a p ro per ly v er ified deni al. W e ag re e. A tr ial co urt has no dis creti on to refuse a p arty ’s req uestfo r le a ve to amend i ts ple adi ng s u nle ss : (1 ) the oppos ing par

ty present s e v ide nce of sur pr is e or prej udi ce; or ( 2) the amendment a ss erts
a new ca use of acti on or

de fe n se , and t hus is preju dic ial on i ts face, and the oppos ing par ty obj ect s t o the amendment. Gr eenhal gh v . Se rv . Ll oyds Ins . C o. , 787 S.W .2d 9 38, 939 ( Tex . 199 0) ; see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 6 3, 66

. Chr is tus as ser

ts that “g ra nti ng Tex as Treas ure l eav e to cure the defectin its v er ified d e n ia l wo u ld h a ve b e e n p a t e n t ly p reju d ic ia l to Ch ri s t u s b y d e p ri vin g i to f t h e p re s u m p t ive
v ali dity of (a nd i mmediat e recov er y on)i ts sui t on swor n a cc o u n t and by req uir ing i t t o l i ti g at e th e me r i ts of th at c l ai m at c on s i de rab l e ad di ti on al ex pe ns e. ” C hr i s tu s al s o c l ai ms that Tex as Treas ure s houl d notbe a fforded more tha n one oppor tuni ty to cor re ct the e rror in its plead ings, and th at for the trial c o u rtt o d o so would have g iv en T exas Trea sure “a
sec ond bi te atthe appl e.” T h e se arg uments , howev er persuas iv e, do not cons ti tute 13 “ev iden ce of

surprise or prejudice .” See G re enhal gh , 787 S.W .2d at 939, 941 ( findi ng that tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by g ra nti ng pl ain ti ff ’s moti on to amend p lea din g to inc re ase amount o f damage s req uest ed, b ecaus e defendant, al tho u gh claiming to be “p re jud ic ed,” di d notsh ow

any ev ide nce of preju dic e or sur pr is e) . Moreov er , t he amended ple adi ng thatTex as Treas ure s oug ht l eav e to file di d not incl ude any new ca uses of act ion
or defenses ; rather , i t was seek ing to cor re ct a tec hni cal er ro r in the wordin g of it s v er ified de ni al t o th e s w or n ac c ou ntc l ai m. W e recog niz e tha t a li ti g ant mus t notbe g iv en unl imi ted o ppor tuni ti es to c or re ct an er ro r in it s p lea din g s; how ev er , we are unw il li ng to cre a te a n ex cept ion to the r ule that
sur pr is e or

preju dic e to the n on- mov ing par ty must be s how n for a tr ial co urt t o deny theSect i on 1 283 ofT i t l e 8 oft he Uni t ed St at es Code pr ov i des: 14 § 12 83. H ospi t al t r eat m ent of al i en cr ewm en a ff l i ct ed wi t h cer t ai n di seases. An al i en cr ewm an, i ncl udi ng a n al i en cr ewm an i nel i gi bl e f ora condi t i onal per m i t t o l and under sect i on 1282( a) of

t hi s t i t l e, who i s f ound on arri val i n a por t of t he Uni t ed St at es t o be 14 mov ing par

ty an o ppor

tuni ty to amend. See G reenhal gh , 7 8 7 S

. W. 2 d a t9 3 9

. W e the refore con clude thatthe trial court ab used its discretion in d e n yin g T exas Trea sure’s moti on for lea v e to file it s four th amend ed ans w er

to Chr is tus ’s co untercl aim to i ncl ude a prop erly v erif ied de nial. Had the tr ial co urt per mitt ed Tex as Treas ure to f il e a four th amend ed ans w er

to Christus’s coun terclaim to include an e f fe c tiv e v erif ied de nial, Christus’s suit on a sworn accou nt w ould have be e n p u ta tissu e an d sum ma ry judgmen t on th ose ground s would have bee n inap prop riate. W e f ind, th erefore, th at th e trial court erred in granting Christus’s
summar y j udg ment on it s c ountercl aim on th e bas is o f a va lid s uiton a swor n ac count
w it hout effect iv e v er ified deni al. W e w il l now co nsi der

w hether the tr ial co urt was jus ti fied in grant ing C hristus’s mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t on any o f

the ot her spe cif ied ground s. B. Guara ntee of Pay ment The tr ial courtalso aw arded Chr is tus summary judg ment based o n the g uarantee of paymen t sig ned byTe x as T reasu re’s hum an r e s ource assistan t, Pau la Coots. It is undi sput ed th at C oots w as proper ly acti ng on Tex as Treas ure’s behalf w hen she s ig ned a doc ument en ti tl ed “ Guarante e of Pay ment ( Und er Secti on 253 of the Immi g ra ti on and Nat ion ali ty

Act) ” (h erein after the “ Guarantee” ) g uaranteei ng “t o pay any and all ex pense s inc ur re d or

to be i ncur re d for the h ospi tal iz ati on, c are, and treat ment, and for bur ial i n the
ev ent o f death, of the s aid al ien crew man [Lan ado]. ” Appel lan ts chal len g e the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng by first cl aimi ng thatthe Immig ra ti on and Na ti o n a lit y Act (t he “ Act ”) , und er auth or ity

of w hic h the Guarantee w as si g ned, does not explicitly or implicitly

create a priv ate cause of action

. Appe llants are co rrect thatthe Act does not e x pli ci tl y

prov ide for a pr iv ate c ause of acti on to enforc e a g uarantee of pay ment
ex ecut ed pursuantto the A ct. See8 U .S.C . § 1283. H ow ev er , C hr is tus di d not see k t o 14aff l i ct ed wi t h any of t he di sabi l i t i es or di seases m ent i oned i n sect i on 1 285 o fth is title , s h a ll be p l aced i n a hospi t al desi gnat ed b y t he i m m i gr at i on o ff i ceri n cha r ge a t t he p or t of ar r i v al and t r eat ed, al l expe nses co nnect ed t her ewi t h, i ncl udi ng bur i al i n t he e v ent of dea t h, t o be bor ne b y t he o wner , age nt , consi gnee, com m andi ng o ff i cer , orm ast erof t he v essel or a ir c r a ft, a n d n o t to b e d e d u c te d f r o m t h e c r e w m a n ’s w a g e s . N o s u c h v e s s e l o ra ir c r a ft s h a ll b e g r a n te d c le a r a n c e u n til s u c h e x p e n s e s a r e p a id , o rth e irp a ym e n t a p p r o p r ia te ly guar ant eed, and t he col l ect orofcust om s i s so not i f i ed b y t he i m m i gr at i on o ff i ceri n cha r ge. An al i en cr ewm an suspect ed of bei ng aff l i ct ed wi t h any such di sabi l i t y or di s ea s e m ay be r em ov ed f r om t he v essel orai r cr aft on whi ch he ar r i v ed t o an i m m i gr at i on st at i on, orot her appr opr i at e pl ace, f orsuch obser v at i on as w i l l enabl e t he exam i ni ng sur geons t o de t er m i ne d e f in ite ly w h e th e ro r n o t h e is s o a ff lic te d , a ll e x p e n s e s c o n n e c te d th e r e w ith to b e b o r n e in t he m annerher ei nbef or e pr escr i bed. I n case s i n whi ch i t app ear s t o t he sa t i sf act i on o ft he i m m i g ra ti o n o ff i c e r i n c h a rg e th a t i t w i l l n o t b e p o s s i b l e w i th i n a re a s o n a b l e ti m e to e ff e c t a c u r e , t h e r e t u r n o f t h e a l i e n c r e wm a n s h a l l b e e n f o r c e d o n , o r a t t h e e xpense of , t he tr a n s p o r ta tio n lin e o n w h ic h h e c a m e , u p o n s u c h c o n d itio n s a s th e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l s h a ll pr escr i be, t o i nsur e t hat t he a l i en sh al l be pr oper l y car ed f orand pr ot ect ed, and t hat t he s p re a d o f c o n ta g i o n s h a l l b e g u a rd e d a g a i n s t. 8 U. S. C

. § 1283.

W e f ur t hernot e t hat sect i on 2 53 o ft he I m m i gr at i on a nd Nat i onal i t y Act ( 8 U. S. C

. § 1283) does not 15 appea rt o be app l i cabl e t o Jud y A nn Lanado ’ s i nj ur i es. As di scussed abov e, t hat sect i on a ppl i es on l y t o al i en cr ewm en who ar e “ f ound on a r r i v al i n a por t of t he Uni t ed St at es t o be aff l i ct ed wi t h an y of t he d i sabi l i t i es or d i s e a s e s m e n ti o n e d i n s e c ti o n 1 2 8 5

. I d. T he condi t i ons m ent i oned i n sect i on 1285 ar e “ f eebl e- m i ndedn ess, i nsani t y , epi l epsy , t uber cul osi s i n an y f or m , l epr osy , or any danger ous cont agi ous di sease. ” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1285. I t i s und i sput ed t hat Lan ado suff er ed f r om non e of t hese condi t i ons. 15 recover payme nt from T exas T reasu re on the basis of a fede ral cause o f action ; rathe r, it merel y soug ht to enforce the Guarantee as a c ontract

. W e ag re e w it h C hr is tus that“ [t] he tr ial co urt’ s referenc es to t he [A ct] are merely i ntended to suppo rtthe appl ic abi li ty and enforc eabi li ty ” of the Gu arantee and are not int ended to ind ic ate that Chr is tus ’s ca use of act ion arose from, or

w as author iz ed by , t he Act. W e do not, therefore, re ach the i ss ue 15 of w hether

the Acti mpli ci tl y

prov ide s a p riva te r ig ht of acti on to enforc e a g uarantee of pay ment execut ed pursuantto the A ct. Appel lan ts next cla im that Chr is tus di d nothav e s tandi ng to enforc e the Guarantee becau se itw as not a thi rd -p arty benefic iar

y of the G uarantee. W e ag re e. There is a l eg al presumpt ion ag ain st, not in fav or of, thi rd -p arty

benefic iar

y ag re ements , and abs ent a ny clear indicat ion in the contract tha t the parties inte nde d to con fer a direct be nef it to the third par ty , t he th ird party

m ay not maint ain an act ion as a thi rd -p arty benef ic iar

y
. City of A lton
v. Shar yl and W ater Suppl y C or p. , 145 S.W .3d 673, 682 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g MC I T ele com m s. Cor

p. v . T ex. Uti ls . Elec. C o. , 995 S.W .2d 6 47, 6 52 (Tex . 199 9) ). The i ntent ion to cont ra ct or co nfer a directbenef itt o a t hird par ty mustbe16

cl ear ly and fully

sp ell ed o u t o r enforc ement by the thi rd par

ty mustbe d eni ed. MCI Telecom m s. Cor

p. , 995 S.W .2d a t 651

. Mo re ov er , t he burden i s o n the thi rd par ty se eki ng to en force the a greem entt o sho w thatthe agreem entw as inte nde d for thatparty’s direct b enefit. See G er

m an Al li ance Ins . C o. v

. Hom e Water Suppl

y C o. , 2 2 6 U

. S

. 2 2 0 , 230 (191 2). The Guarantee did not menti on C hr is tus or any othe r heal th c are prov ide r by name; ra ther , i t was a for m req uired to be fil ed w it h the U nit ed St ates D epar tment of Just ic e under
re g ula ti ons promulg ated by the ag ency then know n as the Immig ra ti on and Nat urali z ati on Ser v ic e. See8 C .F .R . § 253.1( a) ( prov idi ng i n par t t hat “ [t]h e gu a ra ntee of pay ment for medic al and ot her

rela ted e x pense s req uired by se cti on 253 of the Act [ 8 U .S.C . § 1283] shall be ex ecut ed b y

the owner, agent, consignee , com ma ndin g of f icer or maste r on Form I- 510 [Guarantee of P ay ment]. ”)

. C hr is tus su mmari ly st ates thati t i s “ a pr imar y ( and, at t he
v er y l east , a thi rd -p arty ) benefic iar y of the G uarantee, ” but C hr is tus do e s not a ss ert t hat the Guara n t e e i t s e l f c o n t a i n e d a “ c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n ” o r

“ c l e a r l y a n d fu l l y

s p e l l e d o u t ” t h at Chr is tus w as int ended t o be suc h a b enefici ar y
. See Cit

y o f Alton , 145 S.W .3d a t 682 ; MCI Telecom m s. Cor

p. , 995 S.W .2d at 651. Christus the refore did not me et it s b u rd e n in show ing thatthe Guaran te e wa s int ended for i ts benefit, and so itdi d nothav e s tandi ng t o e n fo rc e t h e G u a ra n t e e a s a t h ird -p a rt y b e n e f ic ia ry. W e c oncl ude t hat the tri al cour t er re d i n g ra nti ng C hr is tus ’s su mmary j udg ment on its coun terclaim on the basis of the Gu aran tee of

Paymen t sig ned by

Coots. W e no w

turn to the f ina l basi s for

C hr is tus ’s su mmary

j udg ment on it s c ountercl aim as ide nti fied by the tr ial co urt. C. Texa s T reasu re’s D uty o f Ma in te nan ce an d Cu re T he th ird indep end entg roun d up on which the trial court gra nt ed Christus’s summ ary jud g ment was Tex as Treas ure’s duty of maint enanc e and cure under g eneral mari ti me l aw in conj unct ion w it h the ass ig nment of be nefits ex ecut ed by Lanado upon her

admi ss ion toA p p e l l a n ts c l a i m th a t t h e a s s i g n m e n t o f b e n e fit s e x e c u te d b y L a n a d o u p o n h e r a d m i s s i o n to 16 C hr i st us was i neff ect i v e be cause “ [ p] er sonal i nj ur y cl ai m s ar e no t assi gnabl e i n ad m i r al t y cases. ” W i t hout re a c h i n g th e m e rit s o f th i s a rg u m e n t, w e n o te th a t a p p e l l a n ts f a i l e d to a s s e rt th i s a rg u m e n t i n it s re s p o n s e to C hr i st us’ s m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udgm ent ; r at her , i t was asse r t ed f ort he f i r st t i m e i n T exas T r easur e’ s m ot i on fo r n e w tri a l

. T h e re fo re , t h e a rg u m e n t h a s b e e n w a i v e d

. See G ar rod I nvs. , I nc. v. Schlegel , 139 S. W

. 3d 7 59, 7 6 5 ( T e x . A p p
. – C o r p u s C h r is ti 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t. ) ( s ta tin g th a t “ [a ]n y is s u e w h ic h th e n o n - m o v a n t c la im s w o u ld j us t i fyde ny i ng su m m ary j ud gm en t m us t be i nc l ud ed i n i t s re s po ns e” t o t he m oti on for su m m ary j ud gm en t ); see a lso T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 33

. 1(a )( 1). 17 Chr is tus

. The do ctr ine of maint enanc e and cure, ap pli cabl e i n admi ra lty ca ses , prov ide s 16 that a s eaman w ho i s i nju re d or bec omes i ll w hil e i n the se rv ic e of a s hip i s e nti tl ed to food and l odg ing ( “mai ntenanc e” ) and medi cal se rv ic es (“ cure” ) from the shi p o wne r. Vaughn
v. Atk ins on , 369 U .S. 527, 531 ( 1962) ; Maritim e Oversea s Corp. v. W aiters , 923 S.W .2d 36, 4 0 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 5) , m o dif ie d o n o t h e r gr o u n ds a n d a f f ’d , 917 S.W .2d 1 7 (Tex . 1996). A ship ow ner m ustpayan inj ured or i ll se aman mai ntenanc e and
cure reg ardle ss o f

wh e ther t he s hip ow ner w as at faul t or

w hether

the shi p w as unsea w orthy

. Guev

ar a v . M ar it im e Ov er seas C or p. , 59 F.3d 14 96, 149 9 (5th Cir. 199 5). T he Unite d Sta tes Su prem e Court ha s summ ariz ed th e po licies unde rly ing the dut y as: [T]he pro te ct io n of seamen, w ho, a s a cl ass , are poor , fri endl ess and im p ro vide n t, f ro m th e ha zard s o f illn e ss an d ab a n d o n m e n t whi le ill in fo re ign por ts; the ind ucementto masters a nd ow ners t o protect t he s afetyand heal th of seamen w hil e i n s e rvice ; the mai ntenanc e of a merchantmar ine for t he commerci al ser

v ic e and mari ti me defense of t he nati on by i nduci ng men t o acc ept e mploy ment i n an arduous and per il ous ser v ic e. Vaughan , 3 6 9 U.S . a t 5 3 1 (cit in g Cal m ar S.S . C or p. v . T ayl or , 303 U.S. 525 , 528 (1938 )). Appel lan ts do notdi sput e tha t L a n a d o is a “ seaman” enti tl ed to mai ntenanc e and cure. Appel lan ts do as ser

t, how ev er , t hat t hey

rais ed mater ial i ss ues of factw it h respect t o the
extent of thei r li abi li ty

under thi s d oct ri ne, w hic h s houl d hav e precl uded an award of
summar y j udg ment t o C hr is tus

. Spec ific all y , app ell ants cl aim that the re a re i ss ues of
ma te r i al fact w i th res pe ct to : ( 1) w he th er La na do rea c he d “ ma x i mu m c ure” p r i or t o th e ti me she w as dis charg ed from C hr is tus ; and ( 2) w h e ther t he c harg es inc ur re d by Lanado at Ch ri s t u s we re re a s o n a b le a n d n e c e s s a ry. 1. Ma ximu m C ure T he d octrine of

main ten ance and cure is li mite d in tha t the shipowner is only18

re spons ibl e for an i nju re d s eaman’ s medi cal ex pense s u n ti l suc h ti me as the s eaman obt ains “ma x imu m cure .” Roy al Ins

. Co. of Am

. v. Spher e D ra ke Under

writi ng M gm t., Ltd. , 997 S. W .2d 432 (Tex

. App.–B eaumont 1999, pet. deni ed)

. Ma x imum c ure i s d efined as that poi nt w here no further treatment w il l improv e the c ondi ti on. W aiters , 923 S.W .2d a t 40. M oreo v er, in the ca se of an incap acitat ed se am an, maximum cure doe s not occu r until
suc h ti me as the i ncapa ci ty is dec lared to be p er manent. Vel la v. For d Motor C o. , 421 U. S. 1 , 4 (1 975)

. To suppo rtthei r cont enti on that an is sue of mat er ial fact w as ra is ed w it h reg ard to
max imum c ure, ap pel lan ts ci te an aff ida v itex ecut ed by Jo seph Varon, M .D . dat ed Nov ember

22, 2005, w hic h w as inc lud ed as part of Tex as Treas ure’s su mmary j udg ment
e vide n ce
. T his aff ida v itst ated in re lev ant p art as foll ows: “ [M ]ore l ik ely than not after Nov ember

11, 2002, w hen J udy Lanado reache d max imum i mprov eme n t of her
neurolo g ic al condi ti on, t hat s he no lon g er req uired the ac ute c are medi ci ne s er v ic es at [C hr is tus ].” W ithou t det ermin ing w het her the co nte nt of t he Varon a f

f idavit i s suf

f icient to raise an issue of ma terial fact w ith respe ct to m aximum cure, w e no te th at th e da te up on which
max imum cure becomes effect iv e i s n ot t he dat e in fac t w hen no f urthe r treatm entwould hav e i mprov ed th e c ondi ti on; rather , i t i s t he dat e o n w hic h the medi cal di ag nosi s o f
m a xim u m c u re i s made , ev en i f that di ag nosi s i s made after the fact. Vella , 421 U .S. at 4

. In Vella , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p re me C o u rt h e l d t h a t , a l t h o u g h a s e a ma n ’ s i nj u ryw as in fact per manent i mmediat ely aft er the acc ide nt, the s hip ow ner ow ed mai ntenanc e and
cure to the s eaman up unti l the date w hen medi cal di ag nosi s o f the i mmediat e, pe rmane nt inc apaci ty was firs t made by the shi pow ner ’s medi cal w it ness
. Id. at 5, n. 4. Here, t he pur por ted d iag nosi s o f permanent inc apaci ty w as firs t made by Varon ov er two y ears a fter Lanado w as dis charg ed from C hr is tus

. Thus, ev en i f Varon ’s aff ida v itw ere tak en as tr ue, and ev en if

it were to su f

f ic e t o s h o w that m aximum cure w as reach ed, Te x as T reasu re
w oul d s ti ll hav e owed mai ntenanc e and cure to L a nado t hroug hout her enti re st ay

at19

Christus. Th erefore, ap pellan ts have not e stab lished th at the re is an issue of mat erial fact in dis pute w it h respect t o max imum c ure. 2. Rea son abl enes s o f Me di cal C harges Ano the r li mita tion to the du ty of main ten ance and cure i s tha t a shipo w ner i s liable
o n ly i n s o fa r a s t h e m e d ic a l e xp e n s e s o f a n i nju re d s e a m a n a re re a s o n a b le a n d n e c e s s a ry. See W aiters , 917 S.W .2d a t 18; see also Soco ny-Vacu um Oil Co. v. Aderho ld , 240 S.W .2d 751, 755 ( Tex . 195 1) ( sta ti ng that“ [i ]n ad miralty , i f a defendan t b e lie ves thatamounts act ual ly ex pended for mai ntenanc e and cure are unreason abl e, he may offer rebutt al proof.”)

. Appel lan ts ass ert that thei r summar y jud g ment ev ide nce ra is ed mater ial i ss ues of fact w i th res pe ct to w he th er th e c ha rg es i nc ur red by La na do at C hr i s tu s w ere i n fact
re asona ble and neces sar y
. W e ag re e. The summar

y jud g ment ev ide nce produce d by Chr is tus inc lud ed an aff ida v itsi g ned on Aug ust31, 2005 by W il li am Burg in, M .D

. This aff ida v itst ated in re lev ant p art: I was the a ttend ing physi ci an for Ms . Lanado for the maj or ity of her hos pit al admis si on. As suc h, I w as one of the phy si ci ans i n c harg e of her medi cal care for thi s hospi tal admis si on. I hav e personal know led g e of the medi cal and hos pit al care w hic h w as needed by M s. Lanado, as w ell as the medic al and hosp ital care w hich w as provided to Ms. Lana do by the do ctors, nu rses, a n d ot h e r

h e a l t h ca re pro vide rs a t [ Ch ris tu s] f ro m Au gus t 2 1 , 2 0 0 2 th ro u gh Oct ober 1, 2003. T he medi cal and hospi tal se rv ic es prov ide d to Ms . Lan ado from Aug ust21, 2002 t hroug h October 1, 2003, as re flect ed i n her medi cal re cords, w ere usual , cus tomar y , re asona ble , and neces sar y at t he ti me and pla ce the ser

v ic es w ere rendered, b ased on M s. Lanado’ s h eal th c ondi ti on and di ag noses at the t ime. Chr is tus al so prov ide d an aff ida v itby M arg aret D ipp el, Di re cto r of Pati ent F ina nci al Ser v ic es at Chr is tus , w hic h acc ompani ed Lanado’ s medic al re cords at C hr is tus deta il ing the $ 1,089, 959.82 bil l. The affidav itst ated in r ele v ant p art: “ The pr ic es charg ed, a s re flect ed i n the account , are in acc ordance w it h the ag re ement be tw een J udy A. Lanado and [C hr is tus ] and are the usual , cus tomar y and re asona ble pr ic e for th e se rv ic es re ndered.” In respon se, Tex as Treas ure prov ide d s ummary j udg ment ev ide nce in the for m ofA l t ho ug h t he j ud gm en t on ap pe al he re di d n ot ex pl i c i t l y i nc orp ora t e th e t ri al co urt ’ s pri or ord ers 17 de ny i ng T ex as T rea s ure ’ s m oti on for su m m ary ju d g m e n t an d g ran t i ng C hri s t us ’ s m oti on for su m m ary j udgm ent wi t h r espectt o t he cl ai m s r ai sed i n T exas T r easur e’ s pl ea i n i nt er v ent i on, w e not e t hat t he f i nal ju d g m e n t d i d s ta te th a t i t w a s “fin a l , d i s p o s e s o f a l l c l a i m s a n d p a rti e s , a n d i s a p p e a l a b l e .” 20 af f idavits by

Varon , as not ed a bove, an d by H arv ey Coop er
. V a ro n ’s aff idavit stated in relevant part: “ It is clear fro m m y rev iew of the re c o rd s, tha t Ms. Lana do su f fered brain d a m a g e unnec ess ar il y , due to neg li g ence, g ro ss neg li g ence and mal pract ic e of her heal thc are prov ide rs
. . . .” C ooper ’s aff ida v itst ated in re lev ant p art: I am fam iliar w ith the Af

f idavit of Marg aret Dippe l and th e invoice of [Christus] for hos pit al ser

v ic es ren dered for

Judy Lanado. In my

ex per ien ce based on my19 years as an a udi tor of medic al invoic es, the pr ic es charg ed by [C hr is tus ] are notus ual , c ust o m a ry and reason abl e pr ic es for th e s er v ic es rend ered . . . . In add ition, I have review ed th e Af f idavit of Josep h Vero n, M.D. dat ed Nov em ber 22, 200 5, w ith respe ct to Judy Lan ado , and Dr. V aron ’s opi nio n tha t s he reac hed the maxi mum medic al cure on Nov ember 11, 2002, and t hereafter, no l o n gern eeded t he l ev el of medic al ser v ic es av ail abl e to be prov ide d at [C hr is tus ]. Iti s t herefore my opi nio n tha t t he c harg es made b y [ Ch ri s t u s ] a f

t e r N o ve m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 we re n o tre a s o n a b le o r n e c e s s a ry. Taki ng Varon’ s and Coo per ’s all eg ati ons as tr ue, see Ni xon , 690 S.W .2d a t 548 -4 9,
w e conc lud e that appel lan ts ra is ed a g enui ne is sue of mat er ial fact w it h rega rd to the
re asona ble ness a n d n eces si ty of the medi cal ch arg es inc ur re d by Ju dy Ann Lanado at Chr is tus

. Beca use there are i ss ues of materi al fact i n di sput e w it h reg ard to the e xtent of app ellant s’ li ability und er the m ainte nan ce an d cure do ctrine, th e trial court erred in g ra nti ng C hr is tus ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment on it s c ountercl aim on th is g ro und. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ; Mo wbray, 76 S.W .3d a t 690 ; Sw. Elec. Power C o., 73 S. W .3d a t 215. The tri a l court er re d i n g ra nti ng su mmary j udg ment t o C hr is tus on a ll three of the g ro unds spec if ie d in Ch ris tu s’s co u n te rcl a im aga in stT e xas T re a su re . A p p e lla n ts ’ f irst i ss ue is therefore s ust ain ed.

V. T EXA S T RE A S URE ’ S P LE AI N I NT E RV E NT I ON 17 By the ir second issue , app ellant s argue t h a tt h e t rial court erred in den y ing their moti on for summar

y j udg ment, and i n g ra nti ng C hr is tus ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment,A p p e l l a n ts a n d C h ris tu s a g re e th a t w h i l e g e n e ra l m a rit i m e la w g o v e rn s th e r i g h ts o f L a n a d o w i th 18 r espectt o he rem pl oy er ’ s dut y of m ai nt enance and cur e, T exas l aw gov er ns t he qu es t i on o fwhet her a p p e lla n ts h a v e a ri g h t o f e q u i ta b l e s u b ro g a ti o n o r i n d e m n i tya g a i n s t L a n a d o o r C h ris tu s
. See G authier v. C rosby Mar

ine Serv. , I nc. , 7 5 2 F .2 d 1 0 8 5 , 1 0 9 0 ( 5 th C i r. 1 9 8 5 ) (s ta ti n g th a t “a s h i p o w n e r’s ri g h t t o i n d e m n i ty ag ai ns t a l an d-l oc k ed ph y s i c i an w ho ne gl i ge ntl y t rea t s a p ati en t i njured at se a i s go vern ed by stat e l aw ”)

.

Appel l ant s al so asse r t ed t hat t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o sum m ar y j udgm ent on t hei rpl ea i n i nt er v ent i on 19 pur suantt o t he “ ci r cui t y of act i on” doct r i ne. T hi s doct r i ne p r ov i des t hat a pl ai nti ff’ s c au s e ofact i on wi l l be ext i ngui shed when, as t he r esul t of i ndem ni f i cat i on o bl i gat i ons o rset t l em ent agr eem ent s bet ween t he p ar t i es, a p l a i n ti ffw o u l d e n d u p i n d e m n i fyi n g a n o th e r p a rty fo r i ts o w n o rig i n a l c l a i m
. R ef iner y H olding Co. , L. P. v. TR M I H o l d in g s , In c . (In re E l P a s o R e fin e ry , L .P .) , 302 F. 3d 3 43, 349

- 350 ( 5t h Ci r
. 200 2) ( ci t i ng Philli ps Pi pe L in e Co

. v
. Mc K o wn , 58 0 S

. W

. 2d 43 35 , 44 0 (T ex
. C i v. A pp
. –T y l er 19 79 , w ri t ref’ d n

. r. e.) ).

B oth ap pe l l an t s an d C hri s t us ag ree , ho w eve r, t ha t t hi s do c t ri ne ap pl i es i f an d o nl y i f T ex as T rea s ure h a d a ri g h t o f e q u i ta b l e s u b ro g a ti o n w i th re s p e c t to th e L a n a d o s ’ ri g h ts u n d e r th e i r s e ttl e m e n t a g re e m e n t w i th C hr i st us. B ec au s e we f i nd t hat T exas T r easur e ha d no such r i ght of equ i t abl e sub r ogat i on, as di scussed h e r e in , w e c o n c lu d e th a t t h e c ir c u ity o fa c tio n d o c tr in e d o e s n o t a p p ly. 21 w it h re spect to the cl aims ra is ed in Tex as Treas ure’s ple a in int er v enti on. I n i ts amended

18 ple a i n i nter

v enti on, Texas Treas ure c lai med thati t was enti tl ed to a decl arator y j udg ment that it is eq uit abl y

su brog ated to t he Lana dos’ r ig hts under thei r settl ement ag re ement w it h Chr is tus , and thati t was enti tl ed as a matter of l aw to a decl arator y jud g ment s tati ng that it is not respon sible for paying Lan ado ’s hospita l bill. 19 A
. Equitable Subrogation E qu it a b le su b ro ga t io n “i s a le ga l f ic t io n ” wh e re b y “a n o b li ga t io n , e xt in gu is h e d b y a payme nt m ade bya third perso n, is treate d as still subsisting fo r t h e b e n e f ito f this third person, so thatby

means of itone credi tor i s s ubst it uted t o t h e r igh ts, remedie s, and securities of

ano the r.” Fi

rs t Nat ’ l Bank of Hou sto n v

. Acker m an , 8 S.W . 45, 47 (Te x . 188 8);
see als o Mur

ray v . Cadle C o. , N o. 05 -0 6- 0148 1 -CV, 2008 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 662, at * 8 (Tex . Ap p.–D all as Ma r. 6, 2008, no pet . h. ). Eq u itabl e s ubrog ati on, u nli ke cont ra ctu al subrog ati on, “ does not d epend o n a c ontract but ar is es in ev er

y i nst ance in w hic h one person, not act ing v olu ntar il y , has pai d a d ebt for w hic h another

w as pr imar il y

l iab le and
w hich in equity shou ld have bee n paid b y t he lat ter.” Mi

d- Con ti nent Ins

. Co. v. Lib er

ty Mu t. Ins . C o. , 236 S.W .3d 765, 774 (Tex . 2007). The rati onal e for thi s r ule i s t hat t he i nsured
w ou l d ot he r

w i s e rec ov er tw i c e, a res ul t th at “ th e l aw refu s es to s an cti on.” Or ti z v. Gr eat S. F ir e & Cas . Ins. C o. , 587 S.W .2d 8 18, 8 20 ( Tex . Civ . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1979) , re v’ d on other gr ounds , 597 S.W .2d 342 (Tex. 1 980 ). T he burd en is on the party claimin g equitab leSpeci f i cal l y , t he a gr eem ent st at ed i n pa r t as f ol l ows: 20 T he p ar t i es ag r ee t hat t hi s ack nowl edgm ent , sat i sf act i on a nd a ssi gnm ent as f ul l sat i sf act i on oft he out st andi ng m edi cal and hospi t al expenses JudyA nn Lanado i ncur r ed whi l e a pat i ent at [ C hr i st us] i s not [ t o] be const r ued as f or gi v eness oft he sa i d ho spi t al bi l l ort hat anyam ount pai d t o Jud y Ann La nado i ncl udes t he pay m ent of t he sai d hospi t al bi l l

. [ C hr i st us] i s agr eei ng t o st and i n t he pl ace of Judy Ann Lanad o bywayof assi gnm ent and l ook t o he rEm pl oy er ( s) f o rs a tis f a c tio n o fth e h o s p ita l b ill. Speci f i cal l y , t he a gr eem ent st at ed i n pa r t as f ol l ows: 21

. . . I , Jaspe rLan ado, i ndi v i dual l y , and on behal f ofJudyAnn La nado, as herl awf ul gua r di an, do h er ebyassi gn, gr ant and conv ey t o [ C hr i st us] any and al l cl ai m s, benef i t s and anyr i ght s, t i t l e an d i nt er est i n t hose cl ai m s and be ne fi t s , J udyAnn La nado had, has, orm ayhav e as b e n e f ic ia r y a g a in s t h e r E m p lo ye r ( s ) f o rth e m e d ic a l a n d h o s p ita l e x p e n s e s s h e in c u r r e d w h ile a pa t i ent at [ C hr i st us]

. T hi s assi gnm ent conv ey s t o [ C hr i st us] al l t he r i ght s and p ow ers of col l ect i on g r ant ed t o Judy A

. Lanado undert he m ar i t i m e l aws oft he Uni t ed St at es of Am er i ca and/ ort he l aws oft he St at e of T exas. 22 subrog ati on to es tabl is h he is enti tl ed to i t. Mo nk v. Dal las Br ake & Clutch Ser

v. Co. , 697 S.W .2d 780 , 782 (Tex. App. –Dallas 19 85, w rit ref ’d n.r.e. ). In t he i nst ant c ase, the settl ement ag re ement execut ed by the Lanados and Christus provided spe cif ically thatLan ado ’s hospita l b i l l rem ai ne d ou ts ta nd i ng. M oreo v er, 20 the a g re ement prov ide d tha t t he Lana dos ass ig ned t o C hr is tus her r ig hts under

the doct ri ne of main tenanc e and cure. As such, there is no ri sk that , abs ent a cti on by

the tr ial 21
cour t, the L a n a d o s wou ld recov er tw ic e. W e the re fore c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan ts did not est abl is h tha t t hey are ent it led to be eq uit abl y su brog ated to t he Lana dos’ r ig hts under the settl ement ag re ement. The tr ial co urt did n ot er r in deny ing Tex as Treas ure’s moti on for
sum ma ry

judgmen t or g rantin g Christus’s mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t on th is basis. B. Decla ratory

Judgment In respon se to T ex as Treas ure’s peti ti on for decl arator y j udg ment, Chr is tus cont ended t hat Tex as Treas ure i s respon si ble for L anado’ s enti re hospi tal bi ll , and i s n ot enti tl ed to i ndemni ficat ion or reimbursementi n the ca se of anyi nter v eni ng neg li g ence on the par t of C hr is tus

. In suppo rt of t his arg ument, Chr is tus re li e s on Hou sto n Belt & Ter m ina l Rai

lway C o. v . Burm ester

, 309 S.W .2d 271 (Te x
. Civ

. App .–Hou ston 195 7, w rit
re f’d n.r .e.)

. In t hat ca se , Burmes ter , an ali en s eaman, was inj ured on shore w hen t he
v ehi cl e he w as ri din g in col li ded w it h an eng ine ow ned and operated by a t hird par

ty

. Id. at 27 2. Bur mester’s empl oy er pai d hi s medi cal e xpens es pursuantto the d oct ri ne of23

maint enanc e and cure. Id. at 277. W hen Bu rmes ter fil ed a sui t for neg li g ence ag ain st the thi rd par ty thatow ned and operated the e ng ine , hi s e mploy er i nter v ened, se e king to
re cov er i ts maint enanc e and cure paym e n ts f ro m the thi rd par ty

. Id. O ur

si ste r cour

t,
re cog niz ing that“ the l aws o f the state in w hic h the i nju ry oc cur re d [are] ap pli cabl e,” found tha t Burm este r’s emplo y er had no rig ht of indem nity w ith respe ct to Bu rmest er’s ri ghts. Ch ri s t u s u rg e s u s t o fo ll o w Bur m ester and conc lud e tha t app ell ants are notenti tl ed to an y i ndemni ficat ion or

reimbursementfor

that porti on of

Lanado ’s hos pit al ex pense s t hat
m a y ha ve b e e n th e re su lt o f Ch ris tu s’s n e glige n ce
. W e a re n o t inc lin e d to d o so
. Al th o u gh
n e i t h e r p a rty w a s a b l e t o d i re ctu s t o a n y T e x a s c a s e o f m o re re c e n tv i n t a g e th a n t h e h a l fcent ur y -o ld Bur m ester , the fede ral Fifth Circuit Court of A ppe als has rep eat edly si nce h eld that a s hip ow ner

req uired to pay

m ain tenanc e and cure may re cov er thos e pay ments from
a thi rd par

ty w ho caus ed the inj ur y , ev en w hen t he empl oy ee has al re ady se ttl ed w it h tha t thi rd par ty

. S e e , e .g., Bertramv. Freeport McMoran, Inc. , 35 F.3 d 10 08, 101 7 (5th Cir. 1994) ( sta ti ng that “a n employer ’s ri g ht to re cov er y ov er for maint enanc e and cure i s n ot neg ated by a settl ement by the inj ured empl oy ee w it h the thi rd -p arty tor tfeasor .” ); A da ms v. Texaco , Inc. , 640 F .2d 6 18, 620 (5 th Ci r. 1981)( sta ti ng thatthe under ly ing rati onal e for g ra nti ng the shi pow ner ind emnity “i s that the burden of mainten ance and c ure s houl d be born e by the tortfeaso r, not an innoce nt ship owner.”) ; Savo ie v. Lafo urche Boat Renta ls, Inc. , 6 2 7 F

. 2 d 72 2, 72 2 (5th Cir. 198 0) (stating that “a sea ma n’s inno centemp loyer is enti tl ed to reimbursementfrom a thi rd part y fo r maint enanc e and cure pay ments made
neces sar

y by the thi rd par

ty ’s neg li g ence. ”) ; Tr

i- State Oi

l Tool Indus ., Inc

. v. Delta M ar ine Dr il li ng C o. , 410 F.2d 17 8, 18 6 (5th Cir. 196 9) (stating that “[i]t would be w rong to assess dam ages against a no n-ne gli gent or passively neglig entshipowner for loss or injury suf fered solelyas a result of activ e ne gli gence of

ano the r pa rty , regardless of the ab sence of a contra ctua l re la t io nship between th e pa rties.”). W e con clude that , altho ugh it is undi sput ed th at ap pel lan ts re main li abl e for Lanado’ s h ospi tal ex pense s u nder the doct ri ne of mainten ance and c ure, t hey are entit le d t o declarator y j udg ment t hat t hey

are notAppel l ant s st at e i n t hei rr epl y br i efas f ol l ows: “ Appel l ant s m aynot ul t i m at el y r ecov er100 % of t he 22 subr ogat i on cl ai m , but t heyshoul d not be f or ecl osed f r om doi ng so as a m at t erof l aw. T he j udgm ent of t he tri a l c o u rt s h o u l d b e re v e r s e d a n d th e c a s e re m a n d e d fo r tria l .” W i th th i s s ta te m e n t, a p p e l l a n ts a p p e a r to r ecogni z e t hat , ev en i ft he t r i al cour t had acknowl edged t hei r r i ght t o be equi t abl y subr ogat ed t o t he L anado s’ r ecov er y f r om C hr i st us, t hi s woul d no t ext i ngui sh al l di sput es as t o m at er i al f act i ssues so as t o war r ant t he g ra n ti n g o f T e x a s T re a s u re ’ s s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 24 re spons ibl e for pay ing the amount, if any , of the hospi tal b ill t h at was attr ibu tabl e to Chr is tus ’s neg li g ence. See, e.g., Ber tr am , 3 5 F

. 3 d a t1 017; A da ms , 640 F .2d a t 620 ; Savo ie , 627 F .2d a t 722 Tri- Sta te Oil Tool Ind us., In c. , 410 F .2d a t 186. W e remand t o the tr ial cour t to deter mine the q uest ion s of: (1 ) w hether Chr is tus w as in fact neg li g ent; and ( 2) how much, i f any , of Lanado ’s hos pit al ex pense s were att ri butabl e to suc h neg li g ence. Beca use th e re are i ss ues of materi al fact i n di sput e w it h respect t o the extent of app ellant s’ li ability, the trial court shou ld have den ied bo th Christus’s an d T exas Trea sure’s
mo tions for sum ma ry

judgmen t w ith respe ctto T exas Trea sure’s pet ition for declara tory jud g ment. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(c); FM Props. , 22 S.W .3d a t 872 ; W arrante ch , 210 22 S.W .3d at 765 . Appe llants’ s e c o n d i s s u e is therefore susta ined in part and ov erruled in par t. VI. A PP EL LA NTS ’ D U E P R OC ESS C L A I MS By thei r thi rd is sue, appel lan ts cont end that the tr ial cour t deni ed thei r cons ti tuti onal due proces s r ig hts : (1 ) by deny ing thei r moti on for lea v e to fil e a four th amend ed ans w er to Christus’s cou nte rclaim to includ e an ef fective v erif ied de nial; an d (2) by only partia lly g ra nti ng thei r moti on for lea v e to file a respon se t o C hr is tus ’s uns er v ed Sup ple mental Mo ti on for Summary

Ju dg ment. W e di sag re e. A
. Mo ti on fo r Leave to Fi le F ou rt h A men ded A nsw er t o Ch rist us’ s C ou nt ercl aim As dis cus sed abov e, t he tr ial co urt den ied the appel lan ts’ moti on for lea v e to file a fourth amended answer to Chr is tus ’s count ercl aim to inc lud e a proper ly v er ified deni al of Chr is tus ’s su iton a sw or n account

. Appel lan ts ci te In r e M ar ri age of Richar ds , 991 S.W .2d 32, 37-38 (T ex. Ap p.–Am arillo 1999 , pet . dism’d ), fo r the prop osition thatthe trial court’s
ru li ng depr iv ed th em of thei r r ig ht to due proces s of law . In Richar ds , the Ama rill o Court25

of Appeal s h eld that the tri al cour t’ s putati v e attempt to decid e factual i ss ues w it hout g iv ing one party

the oppor

tuni ty to re spond woul d v iol ate d ue proces s. Id. H ow ev er , i n deny ing Tex as Treas ure’s moti on for lea v e to file a fourt h amended answer , the tr ial cour t w as not deci din g any

par ti cular fa cti ssue; rather , i t was ex erci si ng i ts dis creti on to dete rmi ne
w het her Texas T reasu re shou ld be g iv en anot her opportu nity to correctit s p le a dings. Al th o u g h , a s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d i n d e n y ing Tex as Treas ure this opportu nity , appell ants do not ci te anyauthori ty i ndi cat ing thatsu ch an er ro r in di sc re ti on w oul d depri v e appell ants of their consti tuti onal due proces s r ig hts

. W e find that thi s arg ument has been ina deq uatel y br iefed and therefore waiv ed. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(h). B. Motion for Leav e to Respond t o Christus’s Unserv ed Suppleme ntal Motion for Summary

Judgment Appel lan ts als o arg ue th at t he tr ial cour t depr iv ed th em of thei r due proces s r ig hts by onl y par ti all y g ra nti ng , in the Ma y 26, 2006 fina l jud g ment, Tex as Treas ure’s moti on for l ea v e to fi l e a res po ns e to C hr i s tu s ’ s un s er v ed Su pp l em en ta l M ot i on for Sum ma ry Judg ment. To su ppor

t t hei r arg ument t hat t he tr ial co urt “fail [ed] to al low [Tex as Treas ure]
a meanin g ful oppor

tuni ty to re ply ,” the appel lan ts poi nt to two “n ew cl aims ” whic h th ey cont end were first ra is ed i n C hr is tus ’s Suppl emental M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment. Fi rs t, appel lan ts ass ert t hat t he c lai m re gardin g Lanado ’s al leg ed as si g nment of benefits to Chr is tus w as ra is ed fo r the first ti me i n C hr is tus ’s Suppl emental M oti on for Sum ma ry

Judgme nt an d tha t the lack of an op portu nity for app ellant s to respo nd to this cl aim cons ti tuted a de pr iv ati on of thei r due process rig hts

. Howev er , t he record reflect s th at C hr i s tu s as s er

te d th i s c l ai m prev i ou s l y i n th ei r s ec on d am en ded coun te rc l ai m. Mo re ov er , t he doc ument al leg edl y as si g nin g benefit s t o C hr is tus had been i ncl uded as an exhibit in Christus’s prior mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t on T exas Tre a s u re ’s plea in int er v enti on. Therefore, i t w as not a v iol ati on of appell ants ’ due proces s r ig hts for t he tr ial
cour t to hav e denied thei r req uestfor leav e to file a respon se to t his cl aim, as appel lan tsAs di scussed abov e, t he t r i al cour t al so deni ed T exas T r easur e’ s m ot i on f orsanct i ons st em m i ng 23 from t he fac t t ha t i t w as no t se rved w i t h C hri s t us ’ s S up pl em en t al M oti on for Su m m ary Ju dg m en t

. H ow eve r, a p p e l l a n ts d o n o t c h a l l e n g e th i s ru l i n g i n th e i r a p p e a l ; th e re fo re , w e d o n o t a d d re s s th e i s s u e h e re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .1 ; M a rtin e z v . E l P a s o C o u n ty , 2 1 8 S. W

. 3 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 4 ( Tex

. Ap p
. – El Pa s o 2 0 0 7 , p et

. di sm ’ d) ( “ W hen r ev i ewi ng a ci v i l m at t er , an appel l at e cou r t has no d i scr et i on t o con si deran i ssue n ot r ai sed i n t he ap pe l l an t ’ s bri ef.

. . ”)

. 26 w ere abl e to so re spond ear li er i n the proceed ing s b ut c hose not t o. 23 Seco nd, app ella nts con ten d tha t Christus’s Supp lem ent al Motion for Sum ma ry Judg ment i ncl uded an af fidav itreg ardin g att or ney ’s fees s ig ned by C hr is tus ’s tr ial co unsel John S. Lang ley , w hic h did not appear in Chr is tus ’s pr ior moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. W hil e i t is true t hat t he Sup ple mental M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment i ncl uded t his new aff ida v itev ide nce, the tr ial co urt s peci fical ly g ra nted Tex a s T re a sure the oppor tuni ty to
re spond w it h respect t o the attor ney ’s fees is sue and did not ru le on that is sue unti l after
cons ide ri ng Tex as Treas ure’s re spons e. W e therefore conc lud e that any er ro r commi tted by the trial cou rtin denying T exas Trea sure the opp ortun ity to respo nd to Christus’s Suppl emental M oti on for Su mmary Ju dg ment was har mles s e rror
. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.1. Ap pel lan ts’ thi rd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. VII. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m that por

ti on of the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment den y ing Tex as Treas ure’s moti on for s ummary

j udg ment on it s p lea i n i n te rven ti on. W e rev erse that por ti on of the tr ial court’s judgm entg rantin g Christus’s mo tions for sum ma ry judgmen t o n i t s coun terclaim and on Tex as Treas ure’s pl ea i n i nter v enti on, a nd we re m and t he c ause for furt her proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

_________ _________

_____ DO RI C ON TRERAS G ARZA, J u s t i c e Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 17t h day

of Apr il , 200 8.