### NUM BER 13-08- 0005 4-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
SA M UEL GA RC IA , JR ., M .D., A pp ellan t,
v. M AR I A G O M E Z , I N D I V I D U AL L Y , AN D AS REP RES ENTA

TIVE OF T HE EST A

TE OF OFE LIA M A RR OQU IN, E T A L., A pp ellees . On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 5 of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

Op inio n by

C hie f J us tice Vald ez App ellant , Sam uel Ga rcia, Jr., M.D., appe als a judgme nt dism issing a hea lth care li abi li ty cl aim br oug ht by appel lee , M ar ia Gomez , i ndi v idu all y , and as r epr esent ati v e of the est ate o f Ofelia Ma rroq uin

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 51.014( a) (9 ) (V er non Sup p. 20 08). By one issue, Garcia con ten ds the trial court erred in den y ing him an award2

of attor ney ’s fees after i t di smi ss ed a heal th c ar e l ia bil it y cl aim ag ain st him. See i d. § 74 .3 51 ( b) ( Ve r no n Su pp . 20 08 )

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Aft er u nd erg oi ng a bd om i na l su r g er y , M ar r oq ui n di ed f r om a p ul mo na r y e mb ol i s m. On J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , G o me z b r o u g h t h e a l t h c a r e l i a b i l i t y c l a i ms a g a i n s t t h e h o s p it al and Garcia, alleging that th ey w ere ne gli gent in not recogniz ing Marroquin’s history of d eep v ein thrombosi s a nd in faili ng to pr ev ent the fatal pul monar y embol is m. O n Oc tober 24, 2007, Gar ci a filed a moti on to dis mis s Gomez ’s cl aim and re q uest for attor ney ’s fees. See id

. Gomezrespo nded to the m oti on byagr eei ng to dis mis sal

. Gomez , how ev er , arg ued t hat
an aw ar d of attor ney ’s f ees w as unr eason abl e bec ause w hen s he s ued, she bel iev ed th at Gar ci a w as neg li g ent i n notpl a cing a “fil ter ” in Ma rroq uin ’s ch estca v it y to pr ev ent t he pul monar

y embol is m. D ur ing di sc ov er y , t he hos pit al pr oduce d medi cal r ecords show ing that Ma rroq uin had a f il ter in place . Gomezarg ued an aw ar d of atto rn ey ’s fees w oul d be
u n re a so n a b le be ca u se sh e di d no t k n o w th a t a f ilt e r ha d be e n us e d be fo re su in g. On Novemb er 1 9, 200 7, a hea ring on Garcia’s mo tion w as he ld in w hich Go me z ’s
couns el ar g ued that sui t w as filed w it hout know ing thata fil ter w as in pla ce and t hat e v en Gar ci a’s medi cal r ecords did not show thata fil ter

had been empl oy ed. Gomez ag re ed to the d is mis sal , butsh e arg ued t hat a ttor ney ’s fees w er e notw ar ra nted. G ar ci a arg ued t hat the clarity

of the m edica l records w as irrelev ant to t h e t ri a l co urt’s obligation to aw ard atto rney’s f ees. As to the am oun t of atto rney’s f ees, Ronald Hole, G a rc ia ’s counse l, tes ti fied th at: I’m an atto rney practicing in Hidalgo County, doing me dic a l- m alpract ice law /litigation. I have don e it since 19 8 4. For a usua l and cust om arycase li ke thi s t he [s ic ] f e e s for handl ing i t up to t he poi nt of di smi ss al, the re asona ble and neces sary att or ney ’s fee for han dli ng thati s 1 2,200 dol lars. . . .3

Gomez ’s counsel did not cros s- ex amine Gar ci a’s counsel

. The tr ial co urt s ig ned an or der dis mis si ng the caus e under sec ti on 74. 351 of the ci v il pr act ic e and re medies co de. See id

. The or der sta tes that attor ney ’s fees ar e “ N/ A.” Thi s a cc ele ra ted a ppeal foll ow ed. See id . § 51.0 14(a )(9). II. D I S CUS S I ON W hen a trial court r ules on a def end ant hea lth care prov ider’s mo tion to dismiss a heal th c ar e l iab il it y

cl aim, w e r ev iew

the ru lin g f o r an abus e of di sc re ti on. S e e A m. Tr ansiti onal C ar e C tr s. of T ex. , Inc. v. Pal

aci os , 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 73, 877 -78 (Te x . 200 1); R it t m e r v . G a r za , 65 S.W .3d 7 18, 7 21 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2001, no p et.)

. An abu se of discretion occurs w hen the trial court act s in an un reaso nab le or arbitrary man ner,
w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s o r pr inc ipl es. W alk er v. Gut ier re z , 111 S.W .3d 5 6, 62 (T ex. 2003 ). A tri al court w ill be d eem ed to ha v e acte d arbitrarily and unrea sona bly if the t ri a l co u rt c oul d hav e r eache d onl y one deci si on, y et r eache d a d ifferent one. See Teixeira v. Hall , 107 S.W .3d 8 05, 8 07 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2003, no pet .)

. To that end,
a tr ial cour

t abuse s it s dis cr eti on w hen i t fail s t o anal y z e or appl y the law co rrect ly

. In re Sw. Bel l Tel. C o. , 2 2 6 S .W .3 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 3 ( T e x. 20 0 7 ) (ci ti n g In re Kunt z , 124 S.W .3d 1 79, 181 (Tex. 2003 )). Gar ci a’s onl y

i ss ue i s w hether

the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is cr eti on in n o t aw ar din g atto rney’s f ees. Section 74.3 51 p rov ides: If, as to a defendant phy si ci an or heal th car e pr ov ide r, an ex per t r epor t has not b een s er

v ed w it hin the per iod sp eci fied by Subs ect ion (a ), the cour t, on the mot ion of the a ff ect ed phy si ci an or heal th c ar e prov ide r, s ha ll , subje ct to S ubsec ti on (c) , enter an or der that: (1 ) aw ar ds to t he affected phy si ci an or hea lth care provider reason able att o rney's f ees a nd co sts of court in cur red by

the phy si ci an or

heal th c ar e prov ide r. . . .4

T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74.351( b) (e mphasi s added)

. Stat utes prov idi ng that a par ty “ shal l” be a w ar ded attor ney ’s f ees ar e notdi sc re ti onar y . See B ocque t v

. Her ri ng , 972 S.W .2d 19, 2 0 (T e x. 1998); Doa des v. Syed , 94 S.W .3d 6 64, 6 74 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 2002, no p et.)

. But w hether a s tatut e prov ide s for

the aw ar d of atto rn e y’s fees doe s not en d ou r inq uiry . Gom ez argues tha t the trial court w as prese n t e d wi t h legally ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce to s uppor t t he aw ar d of atto rn ey ’s fees. A c lai m is su ppor

ted b y l eg all y i nsuffici ent e v ide nce if the re cord s how s o ne of the followi ng: (1) a com plete abse nce of evidence o f a v ital fact, (2) rules of law or ev iden ce bar the cour t from g iv ing w eig ht t o the onl y ev ide nce off er ed to p ro ve a v it al fact, ( 3) the evidence o f

f ered to prove a vi t a l f act is no m ore tha n a scintilla, or (4) the evidence est abl is hes conc lus iv ely the oppos it e of the v it al fact. See Cit y o f Ke ller

v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 802 , 810 (Tex. 2005 ). U nde r an abu se of discretion sta nda rd, legal insuf f iciency of the evidence is not an inde pen den t rev ersible ground of error but is a relev ant facto r in
ass ess ing w hether

the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is cr eti on. Beaum ont Bank, N .A. v. Bul ler , 806 S.W .2d 2 23, 2 26 ( Tex . 199 1) ; see W ein gar ten R ealty Inv

estor s v . Har ri s C ounty Appr ais al Dist ., 93 S.W .3d 280 , 283 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dis t

. ] 2 0 0 2, no pet. ) ( op. on reh'g). Cou rt s a re to cons ide r the foll ow ing factors w hen det er mini ng the amount o f
re asona ble att or ney 's fees: ( 1) the ti me and l aborr e qui red, nov elt y , and di ff ic ult y of the q uest ion pr esent ed and the s ki ll r eq uired to proper ly per form the leg al ser

v ic e; ( 2) the likelihood that the acce pta nce o f emp loyment preclude d oth er em ploymen t by the lawy er; (3 ) the fee c ust omari ly

ch ar g ed i n the local it y

f or simi lar serv ic es; (4) the amount i nv olv ed and t he r esul ts obtai ned; (5 ) the t ime li mita ti ons impo se d b y t he c li ent o r by the5

ci rc umstan ces ; ( 6) the natur e and len g th of the professi onal r ela ti onshi p w it h the cl ien t; (7 ) the e x per ien ce, r eputat ion , and abi li ty of the l awy er

per forming the ser

v ic es; and (8 )
w hether the fee is fix ed or

co nti ng ent. See A rt

hur Ander sen & Co. v. Per

ry Equi p. C or p. , 945 S.W .2d 812, 818 (Tex

. 1997) (q u o ti n g T EX
. R. D I S CI P L I NA RY P. 1.04( b) , repr inted in T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN ., ti t. 2, subti t. G app. A (V er non 2005 & Supp. 2008) ). W hen mak ing an inquiry

as to att orne y ’s fe es, cou rts are f ree to loo k at the entire record , the ev iden ce pr esent ed on re asona ble ness , t he amounti n c ontrov er sy , t he c ommon know led g e of the par ti ci pants as lawy er s and judg es, and the r ela ti v e s ucc ess of the p arti es. Gar ro d Inv s., Inc . v . Sc hle gel , 139 S.W .3d 759 , 767 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 4, no pet. ). Of the eight f acto rs, Garcia’s counse l attem pted to pr o ve onl y

the thi rd w hen he sta ted, “[ f]or a us ual and cus tomar y ca se li ke thi s t he [s ic ] fees for h a n d lin g i t up to t he poi nt of di smi ss al, the re asona ble and neces sar y attor ney ’s fee for handl ing thati s 1 2,200 dol lars.” A sta tement is co ncl usor y —and ther efore cons ti tutes no ev ide nce— if i t doe s n ot pr ov ide t h e u n d er ly ing facts to suppo rti ts conc lus ion

. Residen tial Dynamics, LLC v. Love less , 186 S.W .3d 1 92, 1 98 (Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 2006, no pet .) ; Hay nes v. City of Beaum ont , 35 S.W .3d 1 66, 1 78 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 2000, no pet.)

. Gar ci a’s att or ney did not pr ov ide any

under ly ing facts to suppo rthi s c oncl usi on th at the re asona ble tot al fee
w as $12,200 , and from the record w e c annot eit her

. Cf . Doc tor s Hos p. at R enai ss ance, Ltd. v. Ram ir

ez , No

. 1 3
- 0 7
- 0 0 6 0 8 -C V , 2 0 0 8 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 5 1 2 4 , a t*1 0 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ly 10, 2008, no pet .) ( hol din g thatan attor ney ’s tes ti mony “e sta bli shed sev er al of the Ander son pr ong s, inc lud ing : (1 ) the t ime and l abor r eq uired; ( 2) the f e e cu sto mari ly

ch ar g ed i n the l ocal it y for s imi lar

l eg al ser

v ic es; and (3 ) amount6

inv olv ed and re sul ts obtai ned.” ). Mo re ov er , G ar ci a’s co unsel di d notst ate t hat G ar ci a “i ncur re d” the attor ney ’s fees that w er e re q uest ed unde r the s tatut e. Atto rn ey ’s fees ar e r ecov er abl e onl y w hen prov ide d for by sta tute or

by the par ti es’ ag re ement. Dal

las C ent. Appr

ais al Di st. v. Sev

en In v. Co. , 835 S. W .2d 7 5, 77 ( Tex . 19 9 2 ). W it h r eg ar d to chapt er 74, the l eg is lat ur e pr emis ed an
aw ar d of at tor ney ’s fees on an affec ted phys ician or health c ar e pr ovi der i ncur ri ng tho se fees. S ee T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 74.351( b) ( emphasi s a dded) ; see a lso Aviles v. Agu irre , N o . 1 3 -0 6 -0 0 4 9 5 -C V , 2 0 0 8 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 1 0 9 8 , a t*5 -7 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi Feb. 14 , 200 8, pe t. f iled). “In construin g a stat ute , ‘our prima ry obje ctiv e is to determ ine and g iv e ef f ect to the Legislature’s inte nt.’” Tex . D ep’ t of T ra nsp.
v. Nee dham , 8 2 S .W .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 1 8 (T e x. 20 0 2 ) (qu o ti n g Nat 'l Li ab. &F ir e Ins . C o. v

. Al len , 15 S. W .3d 525 , 5 2 7 ( T e x . 200 0)). Had the legislature m ean t to un cond itiona lly aw ard
a t t o rn e y’s fe e s t o m e d ic a l m a lp ra c t ic e d e f e n s e a t t o rn e ys itco u ld h a v e d o n e s o . If we sus tai ned G ar ci a’s i ss ue, w e w oul d g o ag ain st leg is lat iv e i ntentand er ase “i ncur ri ng ” from the s tatut e. T h u s , n o t o n ly is G a rc ia ’s c o u n s e l’ s t e s t im o n y re ga rd in g a t t o rn e y’s fe e s co n c lu s o ry, it failed to e stab lish a n essen tial statu tory elem ent

. T here fore, we find the evidence legally ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t an aw ar d of atto rn ey ’s fees. Gar ci a’s so le is sue is ov er ru led

.

III . C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

__ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 4 th da y

of Dec ember , 200 8.7