NO. 01-14-00319-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON

_____________________________________

BEVERLY SCOTT, ET AL

 Appellants

v.

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

VUJASINOVIC & BECKCOM PLLC,

Appellees 

________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 234th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-33615

________________________________________________________

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

 RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ AMENDED BRIEF 

________________________________________________________

 

SMITH ADAMS LAW FEEHAN LLP 

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 APPELLEE 

ROBIN ARMSTRONG, M.D. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00319-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/16/2015 1:47:49 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/16/2015 1:47:49 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

PRO SE APPELLANTS:

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 Mae Scott, Deceased

c/o Gwendolyn Carpenter

3271 South Shaver #10102

Pasadena, Texas 77504

APPELLEES:

Robin Armstrong, M.D.

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

Richard M. Law

Rainy DeMoss Gibbs

SMITH ADAMS LAW FEEHAN 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

VUJASINOVIC & BECKOM, PLLC

1001 Texas Avenue, Suite 1020

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 224-7800

(713) 224-7801 (Fax)

TRIAL JUDGE:

Honorable Wesley Ward

234th Judicial District Court

201 Caroline, 13h Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ................................................. ii

REFERENCES TO THE PARTIES ................................................................. iv

REFERENCES TO THE RECORD ................................................................. iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................v

RESPONSE TO ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW................................ vi

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................1

II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...........................................................1

III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES .........................................................2

A. APPELLEES' AMENDED BRIEF FAILS TO RAISE ANY ISSUE

WITH THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING ............................................................2

B. NO FACT ISSUE ON FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT RAISED ........................4

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER..................................................................5

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE..................................................................6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................................................7

iii
REFERENCES TO THE PARTIES

Reference Meaning

Appellants/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 RECORD

The record in this appeal consists of the Clerks Record and First Supplemental 

Clerk’s Record. This Brief uses the following conventions in citing the record:

Clerk’s Record “CR. (page)”

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

iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Coll. of the Mainland v. Meneke,

420 S.W.3d 865 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th 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.App.─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

CODES/STATUTES

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art 49.04(a).............................................................4

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art 49.06.................................................................4

RULES

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

v
RESPONSE TO ISSUES 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 

summary judgment and the ruling should be affirmed.

vi
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

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

Response to Appellants’ Amended Brief, in accordance with Rules 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, incorporates herein to this Response, the Brief of 

Appellee, 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 FACTS

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

II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Armstrong further incorporates 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 

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

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

makes no argument to avoid the statute of limitations, they waived their sole 

argument on appeal.

Even if this Court considers the statute 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) Plaintiffs 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 AUTHORITIES

A. APPELLEES’ AMENDED BRIEF FAILS TO RAISE ANY ISSUE WITH THE TRIAL 

COURT’S RULING

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 Tex. 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.”

2

 
the case,2 and a summary of the argument.3 Appellants’ Amended Brief lacks these 

components. Their amended brief contains no discernable statement of facts4 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. Rule 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 proceedings, and the trial court's disposition of the case. The statement 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 arguments 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 concise 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 [14th 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 with 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 (Tex.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. 38.1(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 assistance 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 Dec. 2, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding in 

3

 
B. NO FACT ISSUE ON FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT RAISED

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. The evidence and record in this case establish that 

Plaintiffs 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 such that Plaintiffs did not have a reasonable opportunity to discover the 

alleged 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 

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

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

Procedure8 9 are not relevant to any health care that the Robin Armstrong, M.D. 

provided to the decedent. The 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 intentionally 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 Procedure, 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 inquest is 

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

4

 
in 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 from the record. The Court should deem any issues 

against Appellee Armstrong as waived.

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

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, Appellee, Robin Armstrong, 

M.D., respectfully prays that this Honorable Court affirm the trial court’s April 8, 

2014, order granting Armstrong’s summary judgment, and dismissal with prejudice, 

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

[signature on next page]

5
Respectfully submitted,

SMITH ADAMS LAW FEEHAN 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 APPELLEE,

ROBIN ARMSTRONG, M.D.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

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

counsel – in reliance upon 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

6
CERTIFICATE 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 16th 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 Dents 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

VUJASINOVIC & BECKOM, PLLC

1001 Texas Avenue, Suite 1020

Houston, Texas 77002

E-Service

Honorable Wesley Ward

234th Judicial District Court

201 Caroline, 13th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

E-Service

7