NO. 01

- 14

- 00319

- CV

IN THE C OURT OF A PPEALS

FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS

AT H OUSTON

_____________________________________

BEVERLY SCOTT, ET AL

Appellant s

v.

ROBIN LYNN ARMSTRONG, M.D., CURTIS J. BICKERS AND

VUJASINOVIC & BECKCOM PLLC,

Appell ee s

________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 234 th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 33615

________________________________________________________

APPELLEE, ROBIN LYNN ARMSTRONG , M .D. ’S,

RE SPONSE TO APPELLANT S’ AMENDED BRIEF

________________________________________________________

S MITH A DAMS L AW F EEHAN LLP

Richard M. Law

State Bar No. 12004500

Richard @SmithAdamsLaw.com

Rainy DeMoss Gibbs

State Bar No. 24028292

Rainy @Smith AdamsLaw.com

1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 3800

Houston, Texas 77002

- 7360

Telephone: (713) 652

- 3200

Facsimile: (713) 652

- 6000

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELL EE

ROBIN ARMSTRONG, M.D

. ACCEPTED

01-14-00319-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/16/2015 1:47:49 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKIDENTITIES OF PARTIE S AND COUNSEL

P RO S E A PPELLANTS : Beverly Scott, Clara Scott, Sharon Scott, James Scott, Sammie Scott,

Derrick Scott, Alfred Scott, Sandra Scott, Gwendolyn Carpenter,

Emma Bell, Carolyn Scott, Michael Scott, Doris Scott, Individually and

as Next Friend of Eula M ae Scott, Deceased

c/o Gwendolyn Carpenter

3271 South Shaver #10102

Pasadena, Texas 77504

A PPELLEE S : Robin Armstrong, M.D.

Counsel for Appellee, Robin Armstrong, M.D. :

Richard M. Law

Rainy DeMoss Gibbs

S MITH A DAMS L AW F EEHAN LLP

1415 Louisiana, Suite 3800

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 652

- 3200

(713) 652

- 6000 (Fax)

Curtis J. Bickers and Vujasinovic & Beckcom PLLC

Counsel for Appellee Curtis J. Bickers and Vujasinovic & Beckcom

PLLC :

Brian Beckom

Curtis J. Bickers

V UJASINOVIC & B ECKOM

, PLLC

1001 Texas Avenue, Suite 1020

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 224

- 7800

(713) 224

- 7801 (Fax)

T RIAL J UDGE : Honorable Wesley Ward

234 th Judicial District Court

201 Caroline, 13 h Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

iiTABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF PARTIE S AND COUNSEL

................................ ................. ii

REFERENCES TO THE PA RTIES

................................ ................................ . iv

REFERENCES TO THE RECORD

................................ ................................ . iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

................................ ................................ ................ v

RESPONSE TO ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

................................ v i

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

................................ ................................ ........... 1

II. SUMMARY OF TH E ARGUMENT

................................ ........................... 1

III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TIES

................................ ......................... 2

A. A PPELLEES ' A MENDED B RIEF F AILS TO R AISE A NY I SSUE

WITH THE T RIAL C OURT ' S R ULING

................................ ............................ 2

B. N O F ACT I SSUE ON F RAUDULENT C ONCEALMENT R AISED

........................ 4

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

................................ ................................ .. 5

CERTIFICATE OF COMPL IANCE

................................ ................................ .. 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE

................................ ................................ ............ 7

iiiREFERENCES TO THE PARTIES

Reference Meaning

Appellant s/Plaintiffs Beverly Scott, Michael Scott, James Scott, Emma Bell,

Clara Scott, Sammie Scott, Alfred Scott, Sharon Scott,

Doris Scott, Gwendolyn Carpenter, Carolyn Scott, Derrick

Scott, Sandra Scott, Individually and as Next Friend of

Eula Mae Scott, Deceased

Appellee/ Defendant Robin Lynn Armstrong, M.D. (“Armstrong”)

REFERENCES TO THE RE CORD

The record in this appeal consists of the C lerks R ecord and First S upplemental

C lerk’s R ecord. This B rief uses the following conventions in citing the record:

Clerk’s Record “CR

. (page) ”

First Supplemental Clerk’s Record “CR.Supp. (page) ”

ivINDEX OF AUTHORITIES

C ASES

Coll. of the Mainland v. Meneke

, 420 S.W.3d 865 (Tex.App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] 2014, no pet h.)

.......... 3

In re J.R.H

., No. 11

- 09

- 00321

- CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9662,

2010 WL 5093772 (Tex. App.

— Eastland Dec. 2, 2010, no pet.)

............. 3

Jurek v. Herauf

, No. 14

– 07

– 00727

– CV, 2009 WL 179204

(Tex.App.─Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2009, no pet.)

.......................... 3

In re J.R.H

. , No. 11

- 09

- 00321

- CV, 2010 WL 5093772

(Tex. App.

— Eastland Dec. 2, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.................... 3 , 4

In re L.M.

, No. 01

- 11

- 00137

- CV, 2012 WL 2923132

(Tex.Ap p.─Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 2012, pet. denied)

...................... 3

Shah v. Moss

, 67 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. 2001)

................................ ................................ ..... 4

Whittaker v. Manpower

, No. 14

- 09

- 00508

- CV, 2009 WL 4667391

(Tex. App. Dec. 10, 2009)

................................ ................................ ......... 3

C ODES /S TATUTES

Tex. Cod e Cr im. Proc. Ann. Art 49.04(a)

................................ ............................. 4

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art 49.06.

................................ ................................ 4

R ULES

Tex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(d)

................................ ................................ ................ 3

Tex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(f)

................................ ................................ ................ 2

Tex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(g)

................................ ................................ ............... 3

Tex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(h)

................................ ................................ ............... 3

Tex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(i)

................................ ................................ ............. 3

vRESPONSE TO ISSUE S PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Appellants’ Amended Brief failed to raise a fact issue as to the affirmative

defense of statute of limitations. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted

sum mary judgment and the ruling should be affirmed

.

viTO THE HONORABLE JUST ICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

Appell ee

, Robin Armstrong, M.D. (hereinafter “Armstrong”) , submits this

Response to Appellants ’ Amended Brief , in accordance with Rule s 28 and 38 .6(c)

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and all local rules of this Court, and asks

this Court to affirm the trial court's granting of Armstrong ’s Motion for Interlocutory

Summary Judgment, and dismissing all of Appellants’ claims with prejudice.

Appellee

, Armstrong

, incor porates herein to this Response, the Brief of

Ap pellee

, Robin Armstrong, M.D.

, and the appellate briefs and response/ reply briefs

of the other defendants/appellees in this case. Appellee Armstrong submits this

Response with respect to the allegations of fraudulent concealment and “ drug

overdose injury ” addressed in Appellants’ Amended Brief. [ Br. at 4 ] In support

hereof, Appellee respectfully urges as follows:

I. STATEMENT OF THE FAC TS

Armstrong incorporates herein his Summary of the Facts from his Brief.

II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUM ENT

Armstrong further in corporates herein his Summary of the Argument from

his Brief.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, an appellate brief and now an

amended appellate brief in this Court; all acts that would suggest an appellate issue

1was taken with the lower court’s d ecision. However, none of these filings describes

any error committed by the court below. Because Appellants ’ Amended Brief

ma kes no argument to avoid the statute of limitations , the y waived their sole

argument on appeal.

E ven if this Court considers the s tatute of limitations issue, the trial court was

correct in granting summary judgment . Eula Mae Scott passed away on January 15,

2009. ( CR.Supp. 3 ) Plaintiffs brought suit against Armstrong on November 28,

2012

— almost two years too late. ( CR.Supp. 3 ) Plain tiffs failed to meet their burden

to raise a fact issue in response to the conclusively established affirmative defense

of statute of limitations.

III

. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TIES

A. A PPELLEES ’ A MENDED B RIEF F AILS TO R AISE A NY I SSUE WITH THE T RIAL

C OURT ’ S R ULING

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure requires that an appellant’s brief contain

certain essential parts, including a statement of the issues presented, 1 a statement of

1 T ex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(f) “ Issues Presented. The brief must state concisely all issues or points

presented for review. The statement of an issue or point will be treated as covering every subsidiary

question that is fairly included.”

2t he case, 2 and a summary of the argument. 3 Appellants’ Amended Brief lac ks these

co mponents. Their amended b rief contains no discernable statement of facts 4 and no

argument section with a “clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). 5 The

Court is not required to review issues or arguments not properly presented. 6 In

appropriate circumstances, the failure to properly brief a matter constitutes a waiver

on appeal. 7 Appellee contends that this is such a case.

2 Tex. R. App. P. Ru le 38.1(d) “Statement of the Case

. The brief must state concisely the nature

of the case (e.g., whether it is a suit for damages, on a note, or involving a murder prosecution),

the course of pr oceedings, and the trial court' s disposition of the case. The s tatement should be

supported by record references, should seldom exceed one

- half page, and should not discuss the

facts.”

3 Tex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(h) “ Summary of the Argument. The brief must contain a succinct, clear,

and accurate statement of the argum ents made in the body of the brief. This summary must not

merely repeat the issues or points presented for review.”

4 Tex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(g) “ Statement of Facts

. The brief must state concisely and without

argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented. In a civil case, the court will accept

as true the facts stated unless another party contradicts them. The statement must be supported by

record references.”

5 Tex. R. App. P. Rule 38.1(i) “Argument. The brief must contain a clear and co ncise argument

for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”

6 Coll. of the Mainland v. Meneke , 420 S.W.3d 865, 871 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] 2014

, no pet h. ) (refusing to review issues where an authority was cited generally, but not briefed with

sufficient specificity); Whittaker v. Manpower

, No. 14

- 09

- 00508

- CV, 2009 WL 4667391, at *1

( Tex. App. Dec. 10, 2009 ) (after first issuing an admonishing order, dismissed for failure to provide

a brief in compliance wit h the rules of appellate procedure); Jurek v. Herauf, No. 14

– 07

– 00727

– CV, 2009 WL 179204, at *4 (Tex.App.─Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2009, no pet.) ( Overruling

issues where appellant did not provide any citations to the record or to relevant authority in support

of the issue).

7 In re L.M., No. 01

- 11

- 00137

- CV, 2012 WL 2923132 at *12 (T ex. App.

─ Houston [ 1st Dist. ] July

12, 2012 , pet. denied ) (“Appellants do not include any substantive analysis or discussion of the

record in support of their contentions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 3 8.1(i) (requiring an appellant’ s brief

to contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to

authorities and to the record). We conclude that Appellants have failed to properly brief their

ineffective ass istance of counsel claim; thus, it is waived.”); See In re J.R.H ., No. 11

- 09

- 00321

- CV, 2010 WL 5093772, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Eastland De c. 2, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding in

3B. N O F ACT I SSUE ON F RAUDULEN T C ONCEALMENT R AISED

Plaintiffs’ mere recital of the words “fraudulent concealment” and most

recently the term “drug overdose injury,” does not raise a fact issue sufficient to

avoid summary judgment. T he evidence and record in this case establish that

Pl aintiffs have yet to produce any competent summary judgment evidence or proof

that Armstrong actually knew of a wrong that occurred, had a duty to disclose any

wrong, had a fixed purpose to conceal any such wrong, or did conceal a wrong from

Plaintiffs suc h that Plaintiffs did not have a reasonable opportunity to discover the

a lleged wrong before the statute of limitations expired. Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d

836, 841 (Tex. 2001).

Even if the Court looks past Plaintiffs’ briefing deficiencies, none of the

auth orities cited by Plaintiffs would compel this Court to reverse the trial court’s

ruling. Articles 49.04 and 49.06, Section 8 of the Te xas Code of Criminal

Procedure 8 9 are not relevant to any health care that the Robin Armstrong, M.D.

provided to the d ecedent. T he reference relates to the duties of a justice of the peace

termination of parental rights case, that issue waived because brief lacked adequate analysis and

discussion of issue )).

8 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Title 1, Art. 49.06

- Hindering an Inquest: “ (a) A person

commits an offense if the person inten tionally or knowingly hinders the entrance of a justice of the

peace to a premises where a death occurred or a body is found; and, (b) An offense under this

article is a Class B misdemeanor.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art 49.06.

9 Texas Code of Criminal P rocedure, Art. 49.04, section 8

- Deaths Requiring and Inquest: “ a) A

justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest into the death of a person who dies in the county

served by the justice if:...(8) the person is a child younger than six years of age and an i nquest is

required by Chapter 264, Family Code.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art 49.04(a).

4in the course of a (criminal) death investigation. This cite does not have any legal

import on the appeal, and does not address the elements of a fraudulent concealment

claim, nor does it provide a basis for suggesting the trial court erred in any way.

Appellants have failed to explain how the authorities connect to their

contentions against Armstrong. Additionally, Appellants has failed to support any

factual contentions with support f rom the record. The Court should deem any issues

against Appellee Armstrong as waived.

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYE R

The summary judgment in favor of Armstrong should be affirmed. Plaintiffs

waived their argument on appeal by inadequate briefing. In addition , the trial court’s

judgment should be affirmed because Plaintiffs filed suit outside of the limitations

period and have not demonstrated any exception to the statute of limitations.

WHEREFORE

, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Appell ee

, Robin Armstrong,

M.D.

, respec tfully prays that this Honorable Court affirm the trial court’s April 8,

2014

, order granting Armstrong’s summary judgment, and dismissal with p rejudice

,

and for any further relief to which Appellee may show himself justly entitled.

[signature on next pa ge]

5R espectfully submitted,

S MITH A DAMS L AW F EEHAN LLP

By: /s/ Richard M. Law

______________ Richard M. Law

State Bar No. 12004500

Richard @SmithAdamsLaw.com

Rainy DeMoss Gibbs

State Bar No. 24028292

Rainy @SmithAdamsLaw.com

1415 Louisiana Street , Suite 3800

Houston, Texas 77002

- 7360

Telephone: (713) 652

- 3200

Facsimile: (713) 652

- 6000

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELL EE

, ROBIN ARMSTRONG, M.D.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPL IANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3) , the undersigned

counsel

– i n reliance u pon the word count of the computer program used to prepare

this document

– certifies that this Brief contains 790 words , excluding the words that

need not be counted under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(l).

/

s/ Richard M. Law_

_________ Richard M. Law

6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of Appellee

has been served upon each party or their duly authorized agent or attorney of record

as set out below on this the 16 th day of March , 2015.

/

s/ Richard M. Law__________

Richard M. Law

Gwendolyn Carpenter

3271 South Shaver #10102

Pasadena, Texas 77504

Regular and Certified Mail/RRR

(Article Number: 7012 2210 0001 1362 0891 )

Beverly Scott

406 Den ts Road #86

Dickinson, TX 77539

Regular and Certified Mail/RRR

(Article Number: 7012 2210 0001 1362 0884 )

Brian Beckom

Email: brian@vbattorneys.com

Curtis J. Bickers

Email: Curtis@vbattorneys.com

V UJASINOVIC & B ECKOM

, PLLC

1001 Texas Avenue, Suite 1020

Houston, Texas 77002

E

- Service

Honorable Wesley Ward

234 th Judicial District Court

201 Caroline, 13 th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

E

- Service

7