### 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 41 -C V

______________________________

I N RE: GL ADEWATER HEAL THCARE CENTER, 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 a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Op ini on by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issRe la tor s are Gl a de wate r H e a lth c a re Ce nte r, in i ts a ssume d o r c omm on name ; N e xion H e a lth 1 at Gladewater , I nc.; Nex ion Hea lth, I nc.; Nex ion Manag ement, I nc.; Nex ion Hea lth at Texas, I nc.; Nex i o n He alt h Realty , I nc.; Dar lene Ma loney ; Bruc e Hinshaw ; Donna Albrig ht; Upshur Manor Nurs ingHo me , in

its a ssume d o r c omm on name ; N e xion H e a ltha t G ilm e r, I nc .; D oyle Ros s; D e nis e Ho nn oll ; and

Th y ra Ha wk ins . I n th is o pin ion , th e y

a re c oll e c tiv e ly

c a lle d Re la tor s. T h e t ri al co u rt gra n t ed R el at o rs ' m o t i o n t o re co n s i d er i t s ru l i n g; b u t , af

t er re co n s i d er i n g, 2 a g a in d e nie d th e mot ion s to dis mis s. I n th re e oth e r o pin ion s, we de c ide the c omp a nio n c a se s, ba se d o n th e ratio na le no te d in thi s 3 opinion. The four c ases c an be ide ntified with the following information:

Our C a se Numbe r Tr ia l Co ur t Ca se Nu mbe r Pa tie nt N a me 06-08-000141- CV 545-03 J ohn Richardson 06-08-000142- CV 546-03 L ois McCary 06-08-000143- CV 605-03 Patricia Peter s 06-08-000144- CV 606-03 Bonnie Bur calow

2 O P I N I O N Relators —corpor ate he althcar e entities oper ating nursing homes, or individuals connec ted

1 to those operations, in Upshur County —are defe ndants in four he althcar e liability actions pending in the trial court since Aug ust 2003. Each a ction alleg es neg lige nce in c are of one of four nur sing home re sidents leading to the death of that resident. Plaintiffs f iled three expert repor

ts in each of the fo ur c a se s, wh ic h, a c c or din g to R e la tor s, a re su bs tanti a lly

sim ila r. Re la tor s f

ile d mo tio ns to dismiss in eac h o f t he ca ses base d on alleg ed fa ilure to file the e x pert re port requir ed by former Article 4590i. The trial court de nied Relators' motions t o dismiss

. I n this case, we consider the 2 petition f or writ of mandamus arising from trial court c ause numbe r 545-03, the Richardson case . 33

Re la tor s c ha lle ng e d th e a de qu a c y of the e xpe rt

re po rt s, a rguin g (1 ) that t he e xpe rt re po rt s failed to show that the author was qua lified to rende r an e x pert opinion on ca usation and (2) that the expert repor

ts failed to ade quately

state a causa l link between a lleg ed bre ache s of standar ds of ca re and the d ea t h o f t h e patient. The tria l court denie d Relators' motions t o dismiss , ruling that the expert repor

ts were adequate. Relators see k a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the trial

c ou rt to d ism iss the fo ur

c a se s. We d e ny

the mand a mus re qu e st f

or the fo llo wi ng re a so ns . To be e ntitled to mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that the trial court cle arly abused its discr etion and that the rela tor has no adequa

te re medy by appea l. In re McAllen Me d. Ctr., Inc. , No . 0 5- 08 92 , 2 00 8 T e x. L EX I S 75 9, a t *6 (T e x. Au g . 2 9, 20 08 ) ( or ig . p ro c e e din g ). I n the ir qu e st fo r mand a mus re lie f, Re la tor s r e ly he a vil y on lang ua g e fr om McAllen M edical Center

discussing the

a va ila bil ity of mand amu s rel ief

in h e a lth c a re lia

bil ity laws uit s g ov e rn e d b y

fo rm e r A rt ic le 45 90 i. Although in the pa st, one serious hurdle for those seeking mandamus re lief wa s to establish that the rig ht to appea l w as not a

n adequa te re medy , McAllen M

edical Center stands for the pr oposition t hat parties who unsuc cessf

ully soug ht dismissal under former Article 4590i did not nec essar ily have a n

a de qu a te re me dy by a

pp e a l. Th a t c on c lus ion

de pe nd e d " on

a c a re fu l ana ly sis of

c os ts a nd be ne fi ts of int e rl oc uto ry re vie w. " Id. at *1 3; In re Prude ntial Ins. Co. of Am. , 1 4 8 S. W. 3 d

1 2 4 , 1 3 6 ( T e x. 20 04 ) ( or ig . p ro c e e din g ); se e als o I n re D e p't o f F am ily & Pr ote c tiv e Se rv

s. , N o . 0 8

- 0 5 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 T e x. L EXI S 3 (Tex. J an. 9, 2009) ( orig inal proce eding ) (" Whether a c lear abuse of discretion ca

n beAs the Texas Supreme Court pointed out, some intermedia te appe llate cour ts did perform 4 such re view. 4 adequately

reme died by

appea l depends on a

car eful a

naly sis of the costs and benefits of interlocutory

revie w." ). The majority

opinion in Mc

Al le n M e dic al C e nte r noted that, in enac ting the s ta tute, the Texas L eg islature had alre ady balanc ed mos t of t he relevant c osts and benef its for the judicial bra

nch and, there fore , denying ma

ndamus in cer

tain case s would defe at the g oal of the L eg islature' s act. McAllen Med. Ctr., 2008 Tex. L EXI S 754, a t *17. The opinion a lso pointed out that interlocutory revie w of the de nia l of

mot ion s to dis mis s b a se d o n th e e xpe rt re po rt re qu ir e me nts be c a me a va ila ble by statut e in 2003, but the re v iew wa s not made re troac tive, leaving denied motions in pending case s

re vie wa ble , if a t a ll, on ly

by mand a mus . 4 McAllen M

edical Center

also discusses conside rations t hat would disqualify a hea lthcare liability case from manda

mus relief: For many of the same rea s o n s , we a cknowledg e that mandamus review should not be g rante d i n ever

y pre- 2003 case . The statute wa s intended to prec lude extensive discovery and prolong ed litigation in f ri v o l o u s 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 case is not frivolous. But if the l eg islative purposes behind the statute are still attainable throug h mandamus re view, Te x as cour ts should not fr us tr a te tho se pu rp os e s b y a too -s tr ic t a

pp lic a tio n o f o ur

ow n p ro c e dura l de vic e s. Id. at *19. W e ca n s ee t he deve lopment and applica tion of McAllen M edical Center

in the Me tho dis t He alt hc ar e se ri e s of ca se s. I n 200 5, the Sa n Ant on io co ur t had de nie d man damus re lie f on t he ba sis5

that an ad e qu a te re me dy by a pp e a l existe d to cha lle ng e a tr ia l cou rt ' s den ia l of a moti on

to d ism iss for f ailure to provide adequate ex pert reports. See In re M ethodist Healthcare Sy

s. of San Antonio, Ltd. , 2 56 S.W .3d 313 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, orig . proce eding ). Ye ars late r, the Te x as Supreme Court disposed of that r elator' s petition for mandamus relief , relying on McAllen M

edical Center to conclude tha t the San Antonio court should not have de nied re lief on the ba sis that an adequate re medy

by appea l exi sted. See In re M ethodist Healthcare Sy

s. of San Antonio, L td. , 256 S.W. 3d 26 3 (T e x. 20 08 ) ( or ig ina l pr oc e e din g ). Ha vin g be e n d ir e c te d to re c on sid e r, the Sa n A nto nio court concluded that the relators failed to show that the t rial court had clearly abused its discre tion and denie d the petition on that basis. See In re Methodist Healthcare Sys. of San Antonio, Lt d. , No. 0 4 -0 5 -0 0 3 0 5 -C V, 2 0 0 8 T ex . Ap p . L E XIS 9 3 4 0 (T ex . A p p . — S an An t o n i o De c. 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , o ri g. proce eding ) (mem. op.)

. Th is ca se ha s bee n pe nd ing sin c e Au g us t 2003 a nd wa s set fo r t ri a l f or F e br ua ry 9, 20 09 , o nly to be continued by

the trial cour

t pending resolution of this petition by this Court. This situation seems to be pr ecise ly

like the ca ses desc ribed in McAllen M edical Center wh e re in a

pp e a l wou ld

be an ade quate r emedy . That lang uag e explained that the statutory scheme g overning healthca re liability claims was intende d to avoid extensive discovery and prolong ed litigation in frivolous cases

a nd no te d th a t, i n s ome c a se s— old e r, mor e e xten siv e ly wo rk e d c a se s—ma nd amus r e vie w c ou ld frustra te t hat l eg islative intent. Such is the case here. Her e—conside ring the l ong time the ca se has been pending in the trial court, the imminence of trial, and the amount of discover y that has bee n

c omp le te d—

mand a mus re lie f c ou ld f

ru str a te that ve ry

le g isl a tiv e int e nt.Also supporting our holding is the fa ct that the repor ts on file in this case ar e rather leng thy 5 a nd de ta ile d a

nd a t le a st s ug gest th at th e c a se is n ot f ri vo lou s. We h a ve no t ana ly zed the re po rt s un de r t he statut or

y sc he me , a

nd e xpre ssl y

do no t r ule on the ir le g a l a de qu a c y , b ut m a ke thi s ob se rv a tio n to de mon str a te that thi s c a se a pp e a rs to us to qu a lif

y on , no t ju st o ne or

tw o, bu t each o f t h e t h r e e a l t e r

n a t i v e g r o u n d s s e to u tb y McAllen Medic al Center as ex amples of why appea l might be an a dequate reme dy

and thus deny

th e mandamus re medy . 2008 Tex. L EXI S 759, at *19 (" [R]ev ie w b y

mand a mus may a c tua lly

de fe a t [th e le g isl a tiv e ] g oa l if dis c ov e ry

is c omp le te , tr ia l is imminent, or the exi sting e x pert re ports show a c ase is not frivolous . . . ." ). 6 There fore , based on the authority of McAllen M

edical Center , we ho ld that an a pp e a l w ou ld be ade quate r emedy

for the r eview of the t rial court's ruling on the ex pert re ports and that, ther efor e, mandamus re view is not available

. 5 We, the re fo re , d e ny

the pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of

mand a mus .

J o s h R

. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: Fe bruar y 24, 2009 Date D ecide d: Fe bruar y 25, 2009