### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 43 -C V

______________________________

I N RE: GLAD EWA TE R H EA L TH CA RE C EN TE R, IN IT S A S S U M E D O R

C O M M O N N A M E , E T A L.

Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Re l at o rs , co rp o ra t e h ea l t h ca re en t i t i es o p er at i n g nurs i n g h o m es i nUp s hur C o un ty , h ave f iled in t his Court pe tit ion s f

or wr its of mand amus re la

tin g to f our l on g-pen din g he a lth c are lia bil ity actions. I n this c ause, a companion ca se to In re Gladewater Healthcare Cente r , cause number 06- 08 -0 01 41 -C V, Re lator s c ha ll enge the tr ia l c ourt ' s d e nia l of a mot ion to d ism iss tr ia l c ourt

c a us e number 605-03 styled Grabbs v. Gladewater He althcare Center . The c a us e wa s o ri g ina lly

fi le d in Au g us t 20 03 , a s w e re the oth e r t hr e e pe nd ingc a se s. We note that, in this cause, we have nothing in the re cord that would sugg est the trial cour t had set a date for trial. This f act could distinguish the instant ca se fr om the cause examined in our
cause number 06-08- 0 0 1 4 1 -C V, t h e opinion issued this same day . We believe suc h a distinction
co u l d b e r el ev an tu n d er

o t h er ci rc u m s t an ce s t o th e ap p l i ca t i o no f t h e T e x a s S u p re m e C o u rt 's discussion of rea sons why revie w of these claims by mandamus would be una vailable: For many of the s am e rea sons, we ac knowledg e that mandamus review should not be g rante d in ever

y pre- 2003 case . The statute wa s intended t o prec lude extensive discovery and prolong ed lit i gat i o n in frivolous case s; review by mandamus may actua lly defe at those g oals if discover y is complete, trial is imminent, or the exis ting expert repor

ts show a ca se is not frivolous. But if the leg islative purposes be hind the statute are still attainable throug h mandamus revie w, Texas c ourts should not frustrate those purposes b y a too-strict a pplication of our own pr ocedur al device s. In r e Mc A l l en Med. Ctr., Inc. , N o . 0 5
- 0 8 9 2 , 2 0 0 8 T e x. L E X I S 7 5 9 , a t * 1 9 ( T e x. A u g . 2 9 , 2 0 08) (orig . proce eding ).3

Her e, howe ver, c onsidering t h e other fa ctors mentioned in McAllen M edical Center

(the leng th th e c a s e h a s b e e n p e n d in g , th e d e ta il e d n a tu r e o f th e e xp e rt r e p o rts , an d th e time for discovery ), we believe that the outcome in the instant case r emains the same . Fur ther, the tria l court' s denial of the motion to dismiss this case is not a clear abuse of discretion for the s ame r easons as discussed in In re Glade water Healthcare Cente r , cause number 06-08- 00141-CV. That is, the expert repor

ts filed in this case ar e also suff iciently detailed suc h that the t rial court was not requir ed to dismi ss the cause of ac tion. That said, the petition for wr it of mandamus in this cause is, likewise, denied.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: Fe bruar y 24, 2009 Date D ecide d: Fe bruar y 25, 2009