### 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- 09 -0 00 86 -C V

______________________________

I N RE: GLAD EWA TE R H EA L TH CA RE C EN TE R, I N I TS 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 rThe unde rlying c ases a re doc keted unde r trial co u rt ca use number 545- 03 sty led Da v id 1 Ri c hard so n, Ind ivi du al ly, as th e Rep res ent at ive fo r A ll W ro ng fu l D eat h B enef

iciarie s, an d a s a n H

e ir at L aw a nd

theRe pr ese nta tiv e of t

he Es tat e of J

oh n R ic ha rd

s o n , D e c e a s e d v . G lad

e wat e r H e alt hc ar e Center, in its Assumed or Common Name; Nex ion Health at Gladewater, Inc.; Nexion He alth, Inc.; Nexion He alth Manageme nt, Inc.; Ne xion Health at Texas, Inc .; Nexion He alth Leasing Inc.; Nexion Health Realty, I

nc.; D arlene Malone

y, Indiv idually; Bruce Henshaw, Indiv i dually; and Donna Albr igh t, I

nd iv idu all y and under tria l court ca

use number 606- 03 sty led Bo bb yGr e e n, as Te mp orar

y Administrator of

the Estate of Bonnie Burcalow, Decease d v. Upshur Manor Nursing Home, Upshur County, Texas in Its Assumed or Common Name Nexion Health at G ilmer, Inc.; Nexion He alth, Inc.; Nexion He alth M

a n a ge m e n t, I n c . ; Ne x ion H ealth at Texas, Inc.; Nexion He alth Leasing, Inc.; Nexion He alt h R e alt y , I nc .; Do y le Ro ss, In div idu all

y ; D e nis e Ho nn oll

, I ndivi du al ly; an d Th

y ri H awk ins , In div idu all

y . 2

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Relators ar e seve ral c orporate entities and indi viduals former ly involved in the operation of

nurs ing ho me s and de fe nd ants in lon g -p e nd ing he a lth c are lia bil ity a c tio ns . Re la tor s h a ve fi le d in

1 this Court a p et i t i on for wr it of mandamus re lating to the H onorable L aure n Parish' s appointment of a sp e c ia l ma ste r t o p re sid e in d isc ov e ry and oth e r pretr ial matter s f

ile d in the se tw o c a se s. Relato rs as k t h i s Court to direct the trial c ourt to vacate its order a ppointing the spe cial master beca use the c ase doe s not qua lify as a case in w hich such appointment is permitted. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 171. I. RELEVANT PR OCEDURAL HISTO RY On April 22, 2009, the trial court appointed Richard Davis as a specia l master " to handle the discovery disputes and other matters, including all pretria l matters." At that time, no objection was made r eg ardingthe appointment. On May 8, 2009, the par

ties appea red w ithout objection before the specia l ma ster at a hear ing on sever al pretria l motions. On May 15, 2009, the specia l ma ster madeAl on g w ithits or de r o ve rr uli ngRe la tor s' mot ion s to qu a shde po sit ion s o f t he c or po rate 2 o ff i ce rs , t h e s p ec i al m as t er

s i gn edan o rd er

o v erruling Rel at o r's o b

j ec t i o n s t o R ea l P ar t i es i nI n t er es t 's reque st to take judicial notice of a n ag ree d order

betwee n Relator Da

rlene Maloney

and the Te x as Bo ar d o f N u rs e E x am i n er s , an o rd er o v erru l i n g R e l a t o rs ' o b

j ec t i o n s t o R ea l P ar t i es i nI n t er es t 's reque st to take judicial notice of specific codified rules of age ncies a nd specific public statutes for 20 02 , a n o rd e r o ve rr

uli ngRe la tor s' ob

je c tio ns to Re a l Part ie s in I nte re st' s n oti c e le tte r p ur su ant t o T EX . R. C IV . P. 193.7, an order over ruling objections and privileg es to reque sts for produc tion, and order g ranting Real Parties in Intere st's motion for sa nctions relatingto de fense counsel' s violation of HI PAA. I n this final order, the master f ound that defe n s e co u n s el "imprope rly " c ontacted a nd "c ollud[ ed] w ith" a doctor of one of the dece ased plaintiffs, communicating ex parte with the doctor. As a r es u l t , t h e m as t er p ro h i b i t ed d ef en s e co u n s el fr o m co n t ac t i n g an y o f t h e R ea l P ar t i es i nI n t er es t 's healthca re pr oviders without notice and oppor tunity t o move for a

protec tive order , struck the aff idavit of Dr. Kenne th L

. Skipper, and order ed production of a list of healthcar e provide rs that wer e contac ted in such manne r. See In re Glade water , N o . 0 6

- 0 9

- 0 0 0 5 8

- CV , 2 0 0 9 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 5 3 6 5 ( T e x. 3 App.—Texarkana

J uly 14, 2009, orig . proce eding ). 3 sever al re commendations re g ardingpretria l matters adverse to Relators' positions. Of those se vera l 2

rec ommendations, the master dire cted that Relators make cer tain high- rankingcorpor ate of fice rs available for de position. I t is from this adverse r uling on the a

pex depositi on issue that Relators pr e vio us ly

and un su c c e ssf

ull y so ug ht m and a mus re lie f f ro m th is C ourt

. 3 On J une 2, 2009, Relators f iled with the trial court their objections to the appointment of the sp e c ia l ma ste r in b oth

c a us e s. Af te r a he ari ngon

tho se mot ion s, the tr ia l c ourt ov e rr ule d Re la tor s' objections.4

II. AP P LICABLE LAW A. Av ail abi lit y o f Ma ndam us Mandamus relief is available to corr ect a trial court' s clea r abuse of di scre tion or violation of a minist eria l duty when there is no adequate remedy at law. W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig . proce eding ). A c lear failure of the trial court to analy ze or apply

the law

c or re c tly wi ll c on sti tut e an a

bu se of d is cret ion and

ma y re su lt i n is su anc e of

a wr it o f m and a mus . See In re Tene t Hosp., Ltd. , 116 S.W .3d 821, 825 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, orig . proce eding ). B. App oin tm e nt of Spe c ialM as te r and O bj e c ti on t o A ppoi nt m e nt R u l e 1 7 1 g o v e r

n s t h e a p p o i n t m e n to f

m a s t e r s i nc h an c e r

y: T h e c o u rtm ay, i ne x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s , f o r g o o d c a u s e a p p o i n ta m a s t e r i nc h an c e r

y, who shall be a

citizen of this S tate, and not a n attorney for e ither party to the ac tion, nor re lated to either

party , who shall perf

orm all of the duties require d of him by the court, and shall be under order s of t he court, and have s uch power as the master of c h an c e r y h a s i na c o u rto f e qu i t y. T EX . R. C IV . P. 171. Rule 171 does not specify a ti me by which a party must object to the appointment of a master. Ow e ns -C or nin g Fib e rg las Cor

p. v . Ca ldw e ll , 830 S.W .2d 622, 624 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1 9 9 1 , o r i g . p ro ce ed i n g). C o u rt s h av e c o n cl u d edt h at a p ar t y o b j ec t i n g t o a s p ec i al m as t er 's appointment must make an objection not w ithin some a rbitrar y time period but befor e it has take n pa rt in p ro c e e din g s b e fo re the ma ste r o r b e fo re the pa rt ie s, the ma ste r, and the c ourt have a c te d in relianc e on the master' s appointment. Id. a t 62 5; Zwi ck v . Zwi ck, No. 2-08-182-CV, 2009 Tex. App.5

L EXI S 3949 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth J une 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). That is, a par ty ' s objection to the master' s appointment is tim ely if filed bef

ore the party

participates in proce eding s befor e the master. See Cal

dwe ll , 830 S.W .2d at 625. III . DI SCU SSIO N A. P r e lim ina r y M at te r : N o W r it te n Or de r Ove r r uling Obj e c ti ons Relators conc ede t h at t h ere are no written orde rs over ruling the objections to the spec ial

ma s te r ' s a p p o in tm e n t. T h e y

ma in ta in , h o w e v e r , that the is s u e is p r o p e r ly b e f o r e th is Co u rt. We ag ree . "[I ]t seems clear that if a court' s ruling is adequately shown by

the re porter' s rec ord, then a f o r m a l w r i t t en o rder

is no w un neces sary ." In re Pe rri tt , 9 7 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9

– 8 0 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

1998, orig . proce eding ), mand. granted on other grounds , 9 9 2 S. W. 2 d 4 4 4 ( T e x. 19 99 ) ( or ig . p ro c e e din g ); see T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)(1)( A) (r equiring that an appe ndix to a petition seekingmandamus re lief include " a ce rtified or swor n copy of any order complained of

, or any other docume nt showing t he matter c omplained of ") (empha sis added) . Sist er c ourts have similarly held. See In re Bill Heard Chev rolet, Ltd. , 209 S.W .3d 311, 314 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,

o r i g . p r o c e e d ing ); In r e Ve rnor , 9 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 6 n . 8 (T ex . Ap p . — Au s t i n2 0 0 2 , o ri g. pr oc e e din g ); In re Ble dsoe , 41 S.W .3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2001, orig. proc eeding ).An orde r pronounc ed in open c ourt is considere d "r ender ed" when it is off icially announce d, 4 and it is valid from that time forwa rd, so that formal e ntry

is only a ministerial ac t. Dunn v. Dunn , 43 9 S.W. 2d 83 0, 83 2 ( Te x. 19 69 ); Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd. , 209 S.W .3d at 314. Ther efor e, to be eff ective , a ll o r d e r s an d

r u li n g s mu s t b e ma d e o nth e r e c o r d e it h e r in w r it in g o r

in o p e nc ourt transcr ibed by

the cour t reporte r. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 3 3

. 1 ( a ) ( 2) ; Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd. , 209 S.W. 3d a t 31 5. We n ote tha

t Re la tor s h a ve no t r equ est ed th a t th is C ourt c omp e l th e tr ia l c ourt

to sign a written order. The real parties in interest do not contend in their r esponse that the a bsence of a wr itten order pr eclude s our re view of the issue prese nted. 6 The recor d befor e us indicates that the tria l court had be fore it proposed orde rs ava ilable af ter i t s o ra l ru l i n g an d

t h at i th as n o t , t o d at e, s i gn edo n e o f t h o s e p ro p o s edo rd er s . At t h e J u l y 7 h ea ri n g, 4 ho we ve r, the tr ia l c ourt

c le arl y ov e rr ule d Re la tor s' ob

je c tio ns : I ' m g oin g t o d e n y i t a s t o t h e s e t w o c a s e s o n l y an d t h e o t h e r

– a s f ar a s t h e r e st I ' ll leave that open for

rig ht now, okay , but I ' m goingto deny it on these two ca ses that are specia lly

set. An d wi l l b e – I ' ll hopefully rec eive a

n order very soon, and there fore , any

appellate , y ou know, measur es that y ou-all fee l y ou can take y ou can take with expediency

and we can g et these c ases moved. W e h av e b ef

o re u s t h e r ep o rt er 's re co rdo f t h at h ea ri n g. T h er ef o re , we co n cl u d e t h at t h e r ep o rt er 's

re c or d o f t

he July 7 h e ari ngand

the tr ia l c ourt ' s a

pp are nt r e fu sa l to sig n a wr itt e n or de r in t his c a se

are "suf ficient to plac e bef

ore us the c omplaints made the b as i s of re lators' petition for writ of

man dam us ." See Pe rri tt , 973 S.W .2d at 779–80. B. Cha lle ngi ng t he App oin tm e nt Havi n g co n cl uded that the issue is bef ore us, we move on to the substance of that issue. Relators conte nd that the trial cour t failed to make the re quired findin gs t h at t hese c auses we re "e x ceptional c ase s" a

nd that "g ood cause " e x isted for the a ppointment of the specia l master. See Simpson v. Canales , 806 S.W .2d 802 (Tex. 1991).I t is because of the sig nificant pa rticipation in matters placed before the specia l master that 5 we ne ed not addr ess the re al par ties in interest' s contention that Relators conse nted to the appointment of a spe cial master

. I n their response, t he real par ties in interest ref

er to a confe renc e c a ll w iththe tr ia l c ourt

and op po sin g c ouns el du ri ng wh ic h a ll p art ie s a g re e d to the a pp oin tme nt. W e ex p re s s l y

avoid addr essing the conse nt issue as it relates to the time pe riod befor e the a pp oin tme nt. The re cord indicates that the par ties participate d in a conf

ere nce c all with the specia l master 6 on April 28 to discuss scheduling matters. F urther, it appe ars th at Relators filed se vera l motions with the specia l master, including a supplementa l motion for summary ju d gment, motion for continuance , and a motion to strike. Relators a lso submit ted to th e s p ec i al master their proposed o rd er fo l l o wi n g t h e M ay

8 h ea ri n g. 7 Du e to t he pr oc e dura l hi sto ry of the un de rl y ing c a se s, ho we ve r, we ne e d no t r e a c h th e me ri ts of the Rule 171 cont en t i o n . T he re cord indicates that Relators have appea red be fore the spec ial master without objection. Most notably , we look at R elators' participation in the pretria l hear ing on May 8, 20 09

. Th e he ari nga dd re sse d s e ve ra l pr e tr ia l matte rs , a nd a t no tim e duri ngthat he ari ngdid Relators objec t to the a

ppointment of

the spec ial master. We also note that Relators cor responde d 5 with t he spec ial master a nd filed with the spec ial master a number of motions. I n Cal dwe ll , 6 althoug h the objections we re lodg ed seve ral months afte r the trial court signe d its orde r appointing the master, the objections wer e lodge d befor e the objecting party ' s participation in matters before the master. 830 S.W.2d at 626. So, thoug h we note that Relators objecte d approximately five we eks aft er t he app oi nt men t of th e ma st er, i t i s t he l evel of p art ici pat io n h ere o n wh ich we co ncen tr ate . By fa ir ly e xten siv e pa

rt ic ipatio n in

pr oc e e din g be fo re the sp e c ia l ma ste r, Re la tor s h a ve wa ive d th e ir objection to the appointment of the ma ster.8

IV . CO NC LU SION Relators have not s h o wn t h at t he trial c ourt clea rly abused its discre tion by overr uling objections to the ap p o i n t m ent of a special maste r whe n Relators have waived suc h objections by appea ring befor e the spe cial master . Relators have , there fore , failed to e stablish that they are entitled to ma n d a mu s r e li e f

. F o r th is r e a s o n , w e d e n y th e p e ti ti o n . H a v in g d o n e s o , w e deny as moot Relators' motion for temporar y relief

.

J ack Ca

rter J ustice Date Submitted: October 26, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 27, 2009