Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00756

- CV

IN THE TEXAS THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

__________ ____________ VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER Appellant

v.
ROSALIN D A BATTLES, GERALD BATTLES, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF ROSALINDA BATTLES, AMANDA GISELLE BATTLES, AS SURVIVING CHILD OF ROSALINDA BATTLES, AND JEREMY BLAKE, AS SURVIVING CHILD OF ROSALINDA BATTLES Appellees

__________ ____________ Appeal from 444 TH Judicial District Court of Cameron County, Texas for Cause No. 2013

- DCL

- 4983

- H

__________ ____________ BRIEF FOR THE APPELLE E S

______________________

MYLES R. GARZA ROBERT GARZA 1200 East Harrison Brownsville, Texas 78520 Telephone: (956) 544

- 1111 Fax: (956) 544

- 1108
Attorn ey s for the Appellees, ROSALINDA BAT TLES, et al. ACCEPTED 13-14-00756-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 3/20/2015 3:57:22 PM DORIAN RAMIREZ

CLERKii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

................................ ................................ ................... iii

ISSUES PRESENTED

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

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

ARGUMENT

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

A. Whether the Appellant preserved the “no report” argument on appeal by failing to timely present this issue to the Court, and instead, submitted a proposed order granting the 30

- day extension, agreed to pass the hearing on the merits, and presented this argument nearly a year after the Court had ruled.

......... 4 B. Whether the case law cited by Appellant supports Appelle e s ' contention that Appellant failed to preserve the “no report” at all argument to the Court.

................................ ................................ ..... 6 C. Conclusion

................................ ................................ ............................ 9

PRAYER

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

................................ ................................ ............... 11

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

................................ ................................ ...... 12

APPENDIX

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases

Bushell v. Dean , 803 S.W.2d 711 (Tex.1991)(op. on reh’g)

................................ .... 4 Fung v. Fischer , 365 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2012), disapproved of by Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts , 392 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2013)

............................ 8

Haskell v. Seven Acr es Jewish Senior Care Services, Inc. , 363 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.)

................................ ...................... 7 Jernigan v. Langley , 195 S.W.3d 91 (Tex.2006)

................................ ...................... 4 Laredo Texas Hosp. Co., L.P. v. Gonzalez , 363 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2012, no pet.)

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

Otero v. L eon , 319 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2010, pet. denied)

.... 4 San Antonio Extended Med. Care, Inc. v. Vasquez , 358 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2011, pet. dism'd w.o.j.)

................................ ............................ 8 Scoresby v. Santillan , 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.2011)

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

Velandia v. Contreras , 359 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.)

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

Williamson v. New Times, Inc. , 980 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1998, no pet.)

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

Rules

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann . § 74.351

................................ ........................... 4
Tex. R. App. P. 33.1

................................ ................................ ................................ . 4iv ISSUES PRESENTED

Issue 1: Whether the Appellant preserved the “no report” argument on appeal by failing to timely present this issue to the Court, and instead, submitted a proposed order granting the 30

- day extension, agreed to pass the hearing on the merits, and presented this argument nearly a year after the Court had ruled.

Issue 2 : Whether the case law cited by Appellant supports Appellee s ’ contention that Appellant failed to preserve the “no report” at all argument to the Court.1 STATEMENT OF FACTS On July, 2 4, 2013, Appellees sued Appellant alleging Appellant’s nursing staff negligently caused the death of Rosalinda Battles due to insufficient post

surgery monitoring. C.R. 7

- 8, 17

- 18. On November 21, 2013, Appellees served the expert report and curium vita e from Nurse Erin K. O’Malley (“O’Malley”) on Appellant. C.R. 40

- 48. On December 4, 2013, Appellant filed its objections to O’Malley’s expert report. C.R. 35

- 50. In Appellant’s objections, section III titled “[m]otion to [d]ismiss or [a]lternatively to [r]equire [p]laintiff [s]erve an [a]mended [r]eport that [m]eets Chapter 74 [r]equirements” was submitted. C.R. 37

- 38. A ppellants also submitted a proposed order sustaining their objections and granting the 30

- day
extension to cure t he deficient report. C.R. 49. Appellees did not file a response to Appellant’s objections. On January 8, 2014, the Court set Appellants objec tions for hearing. App. 1. Both parties appeared before to the Court to pass the hearing and set a status hearing a month later

. Id

. The same day, the Court signed Appellant’s proposed order granting the 30

- day extension. Id ., C.R. 51

- 52.
On Februa ry 7, 20 14, the Appellees served, via facsimile and certified mail return receipt requested , Appellant O’Malley’s amended expert report. C.R. 63

- 66. Appellant did not object to the amended expert report after the 21

- day period on2 March 12, 2014. C.R. 53

- 60. The Appellees filed a response to Appellant’s objectio n claiming Appellant waived any and all objections. C.R. 67

- 71.
The Court set a hearing on the amended expert report for April 2, 2014. App. 1. Both parties appeared and Appellant requested d ismissal of the case. R.R.
II, 5:8

- 7:2

. Appellees ’ responded that any and all objections to the amended expert report were waived by failing to object within the 21

- day period. R.R. II, 7:3

- 8:18. The Court did not rule on Appellant’s second motion to dismiss immediately. On December 3, 2014, the Court set a second hearing on the matter upon Appellees’ request . App. 1. Appellant, for the first time, argued O’Malley’s first
expert report was “no report” at all and the case should be dismissed on this basis.
R.R. III, 8

- 11. The Court denied Appellant’s second motion to dismiss on December 10, 2014. C.R. 75. This appeal followed contesting the first expert report was “no report” at all

. 1

1 Appellant’s Brief does not challenge any issue of the amended report.3 SUMM AR Y OF THE ARGUMENT This Appellee s’ brief questions whether the Appellant preserved the “no report” at all argument for review. Appellant did not preserve the “no report” argument for review as the Appellant submitted with it’s first motion to dismiss a

pr oposed order granting Appellee a 30

- day extension, passed the hearing on Appellee’s first expert report, and presented this argument nearly a year after the Court had already ruled. Thus, Appellant waived their issue for appellate review. The cases cited by Appellant further support the need to timely present the “no report” at all argument to a trial court before ruling on the merits. Unlike the cases cited, Appellant passed its first motion to dismiss hearing and presented the

issue well after the Court had already ruled. This did not preserve the argument. Thus, Appellant, again, waived this issue for appellate review.4 ARGUMENT On appeal, a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss under section
74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Jernigan v. Langley , 195 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex.2006) ; Otero v. Leon , 319 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2010, pet. denied) ; see T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . § 74.351(b) . A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts unreasonably or arbitrarily or without reference to any guiding principles. Otero , 319 S.W.3d at 199. However, f or p reservation of a complaint on review, a party must have

pres ented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds for the desired ruling, if they are not apparent from the context of the request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)

. A party that fails to do this has not preserved error and the complaint is waived. Bushell v. Dean , 803 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex.1991)(op. on reh’g) ; Williamson v. New Times, Inc. , 980 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1998, no pet.)

. A. Whether the A ppellant preserved the “no report” argument on appeal by failing to timely p resent this issue to the Court, and instead, submitted a proposed order grantin g the 30

- day extension, agreed to pass the hearing on the merits, and presented this argument nearly a year after the Court had ruled. Appellant argues the Court abused its discretion because the first expert report was “no report” at all and the case should have been dismissed on this basis.5 However, this issue was not preserved a nd was not presented until nearly a year later after the Court had already ruled. Initially, when Appellees f iled an expert report, the Appe llant timely filed it s objections and motion to dismiss along with a prop o sed order sustaining their objections and granting a 30

- day extension to cure the defi ciencies in the expert
report. C.R. 35

- 52

. Appellant’s own motion requests dismissal or “alternative ly ”
amend the expert report to meet the Chapter 74 requirements. C.R. 37

- 38. Appellees did not file a respo nse to the motion as it suggested to the Court to sustain Appellant’s objections and grant the 30

- day extension. Additionally, t here was no mention of O’Malley’s expert report constituting “no report” at all. When the Court set the motion for hearing on t he merits on January 8, 2014, the Appellant had an opportunity to present the “no report” at all argument to the Court. However, both parties appeared and agreed to pass the hearing. 2 App. 1.
As a result of the parties’ agreement, a status hearing was s et for a little more than 30 days and the Court signed the Appellant’s proposed order on January 8, 2014, which granted the Appellees a 30

- day extension to cure the expert report. App. 1,

C.R. 51

- 52. It was not until December 3, 2014 that Appellant presen ted for the first time, the “no report” at all argument to the Court. R.R. IV, 8

- 11. This was nearly a year

2 Although the Court notes both attorneys appearing and agreeing to pass the hearing, a Reporter’s Record is not available as informed by the Court.6 after the Court had already ruled on the first expert report. As a result of the Appellant submitting the proposed order for the 30

- day
extension to cure the expert report, agreeing to pass hearing arguments on their motion, and waiting nearly a year later to present the “no report” at all argument, Appellant did not timely present the argument before the Court and, thus, did not preserve this issue for appeal.

B. Whether the case law cited by Appellant supports Appelle e s ’ contention that Appellant failed to preserve the “no report” at all argument to the Court. Next, Appellant claims the Court abused its discretion by citing several
cases where a trial court was obligated to grant their first motion to dismiss based on the “no report” at all argument. However, in each of the cases cited, the objecting party timely presented this issue to the trial court before a ruling was
made. This is not the c ase here. For example, i n Scoresby , a group of P hysicians timely objected to a letter serving as an expert report. Scoresby v. Santillan , 346 S. W.3d 546, 551 (Tex.2011) . The P hysicians argued before the trial court that the letter was “so woefully deficient, it did not even qualify as an expert report under the Act.” Id

. Here, the trial court was aware of the “no report” at al l argument before ruling

. Id

. Additionally, i n Velandia , a P hysician first motioned to dismiss a Plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the expert report was not timely served. Velandia v.7 Contreras , 359 S.W.3d 674, 675

- 76 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) . The Plaintiff responded that the expert report was timely served. Id . at 676.

However , before the trial court’s ruling, the Physician replied t hat the purported expert report was “no expert report at all.” Id . The trial court was made aware of the “no report at all” argument and ruled accordingly

. Id

. Also, i n Haskell , some Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for a Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve an expert report. Haskell v. Seven Acres Jewish Senior Care
Services, Inc. , 363 S.W.3d 754, 757 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) . The Defendants were unaware that the Plaintiff had served documents to
them that the Plaintiff contended satisfied a time ly expert report. Id . The Plaintiff

asserted the Defendants missed their 21

- day deadline to object and waived any and all objections. Id

. Before the trial court’s ruling, t he Defendants countered that the purported documents constituted “no expert repo rt at all” and reargued their
motion to dismiss. Id . Here, the trial court was aware of “no report” at all
argument before ruling for Defendants

. Id

. Moreover, i n Gonzalez , a group of defendants challenged the sufficiency of the expert report and moved to dismiss a Plaintiff’s case

. Laredo Texas Hosp. Co.,

L.P. v. Gonzalez , 363 S.W.3d 255, 256

- 57 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2012, no pet.)

. The Plaintiff filed a response that the expert report was not deficient and requested a 30

- day extension to cure the deficiency. Id . The trial court denied the8 Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the extension. Id

. Even though overturned on appeal , the trial court was aware of the Defendants’ arguments. Id

. Likewise, i n Vasquez , a Defendant moved to dismiss due to a Plaintiff’s failure to serve a medical report. San Antonio Extended Med. Care, Inc. v. Vasquez , 358 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2011, pet. dism'd w.o.j.)

. The Plaintiff moved to strike dismissal, claimed Defendant was not a “health care provider,” and, even if “health care provider,” Defendant waived objections by not timely filing objecting

. Id . The trial court determined Defendant was not a “health care provider,” the case was appealed, the app ellate court determined Defendant was a “health care provider,” and the case was remanded. Id . at 687

- 88. On
remand and before ruling , the Defendant argued Plaintiff’s expert report was “no report” at all. Id . at 688. While the trial court erroneously ruled in favor of the

Plaintiff , the argument was presented to the court. Id

. Further, i n Fung , a Defendant argued before a probate court the “no report” at all argument. Fung v. Fischer , 365 S.W.3d 507, 517 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2012), disapproved of by Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts , 392 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2013)

. Unlike the other co

- defenda nts, t he probate court render ed judgment on the merits

of the Defendant’s objections for failure to comply with the statutory requirements.

Id . at 528. Similarly , the probate court was aware of the “no re port” at all argument and preserved the issue for appellate review. Id

.9 In all Appellant’s cases cited, the objecting party timely brought before the trial courts the “no report” at all argument

. The trial court , at minimum , considered this argument before issuing a ruling. Thus, preserving this iss ue for review by the appellate courts

. However, in this appeal , the Appellant did not present the “no report” at all argument before the Court issued the 30

- day extension. Instead, the Appellant agreed to pass the hearing on the merits and the Court signed Appellant’s proposed order for granting the extension. Appellant had an opportunity to timely present this argumen t before the Court ruled, but did not. Thus, the argument was not preserved for appeal.
Therefore, from the cases cited where the “no report” at all argument was properl y presented to the trial court before ruling, preserving the argument, and Appellant untimely presenting the ar gument after the Court ruled, Appellant did not preserve the issue for review.

C. Conclusion As a result of Appellant submitting the proposed order granting the 30

- day extension, passing the hearing on the merits, and presenting the “no report” at all

ar gument nearly a year after the Court had already ruled, Appellant did not timely present this objection to the Court and did not preserve this issue for appeal. Additionally, the case law sub mitted by Appellant supports that the argument10 needs to be presented to a tria l court before that trial court’s ruling. Appellant did not present the “no report” at all argument to the Court until a year after the Court had already made its ruling, thus, waiving the “no report” at all argument to Appellees’ first expert report.

PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons discussed above, Appellees, Rosalinda Battles et al., pray this Court render judgment in favor of Appellees , and for all other relief to which Appellees are entitled. Respectfully Submitted

Law Office of Robert Garza, P.C. 1200 East Harrison Brownsville, Texas 78520 Telephone: (956) 544

- 1111 Facsimile : (956) 544

- 1108

By: /s/ Myles R. Garza MYLES R. GARZA Texas Bar No. 24086499 myles@rgarzalaw.com

ROBERT GARZA Texas Bar No. 07738025 jrobert@rgarzalaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff
, Rosalinda Battles
, et al.11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, hereby, certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was forwarded to the following counsel of record on the 20 th day of March, 2015, via electronic service and electronic mail: Attorneys of record for Appellant, Valley Baptist Medical Center
Scott T. Clark Roger W. Hughes Will Hughes Adams & Graham, L.L.P. P.O. Drawer 1429 Harlingen, TX 78551

___ /s/ Myles R. Garza

_____ _ MYLES R. GARZA12 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3), the undersigned counsel certifies this Appellees ’ Brief complies with the type

- volume limitation s of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B )

. Exclusive of the exempted portions in Tex. R. App. P. 9(i)(1), Appellees ’ Brief
contains 2,093 words. Appellees ’ Brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using:
Software Name and Version: Microsoft Word 2011 In (Typeface Name and Font Size): Times New Roman 14 point for Text ; Times New Roman 12 point for Foo tnotes

.

Law Office of Robert Garza, P.C. 1200 E. Harrison St. Brownsville, TX 78520 Phone (956) 544

- 1111 Facsimile : (956) 544

- 1108

By: /s/ Myles R. Garza MYLES R. GARZA Texas Bar No. 2408649913 APPENDIX

1. Register of Actions for Case No. 2013

- DCL

- 04983 from Cameron County Public Access
Website. See Case No. 2013

- DCL

- 04983, C AMERON C OUNTY P UBLIC A CCESS , http://co.cameron.tx.us/publicaccess (follow “Civil, Family & Probate Case Records” hyperlink; then search “Case Number” for “2013dcl4983”; then follow “2013

- DCL

04983” hyperlink).

## C AUSE 

## N O



## . 13

- 14

- 00756

- CV 

# APPENDIX 1

TO 

## A PPELLEE 

## ’ S 

## B RIEF3/16/15, 12:01 PM

Page 1 of 3 http://co.cameron.tx.us/publicaccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2447373

Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu New Civil Search Refine Search Back Location : All Cameron County Courts 

### R EGISTER OF 

### A CTIONS

C ASE N O . 2013-DCL-04983

ROSALINDA BATTLES,GERALD BATTLES, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF ROSALINDA BATTLES,AMANDA GISELLE BATTLES, AS SURVIVING CHILD OF ROSALINDA BATTLES, JERAMY BLAKE BATTLES, AS SURVIVING CHILD OF ROSALINDA BATTLES vs. VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER § § § § § Case Type: Medical Malpractice Date Filed: 07/24/2013

Location: 444th District Court

P ARTY I NFORMATION Attorneys Defendant VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER WILBERT (WILL) HUGHES Retained 956-428-7495(W) HARLINGEN, TX 78550

Plaintiff BATTLES, AMANDA

Plaintiff BATTLES, GERALD

Plaintiff BATTLES, JERAMY BLAKE

Plaintiff BATTLES, ROSALINDA ROBERT GARZA Retained 956-544-1111(W) E VENTS & O RDERS OF THE C OURT OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 07/24/2013 Original Petition (OCA) PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION 07/24/2013 Jury Fee Paid (OCA) 07/25/2013 Citation Issued PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION 07/25/2013 Citation VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER Served 08/06/2013 Returned 08/06/2013 07/25/2013 Clerks Journal CITATION PLACED IN PICK UP BOX ATTORNEYS OFFICE NOTIFIED. M.AMIEVA 08/30/2013 Jury Demand Valley Baptist Medical Center - Brownsville's Jury Demand 08/30/2013 Original Answer Valley Baptist Medical Center's Original Answer 09/04/2013 Certificate of Written Discovery Valley Baptist Medical Center - Brownsville's Certificate of Written Discovery 09/05/2013 Certificate Certificate of Discovery 10/03/2013 Certificate of Written Discovery Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville Certificate of Written Discovery 12/04/2013 Document Filed Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Objection to Plaintiff's Expert Report of Erin k. O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,INC-CSp and Motion to Dismiss 01/08/2014 Motion Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David) ON DEF OBJECTIONS 2 PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT REPORT OF ERIN K. O'MALLEY, RN, BSN, MHSA, INC-CSP & MTN 2 DISMISS 01/08/2014 Journal Entry Both attys appeared agreed to pass and set for status 2/12/14 DSANCHEZ/pg 01/08/2014 Order (Judicial Officer: Sanchez, David ) Order Granting Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Centrer-Brownsville's Objections to Plaintiffs' Expert Report of Erin K. O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,INC+CSP and Granting Plaintiffs a CPRC $74.351(c) Extension to Furnish Compliant Report 02/12/2014 Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David) 02/12/2014 Journal Entry Hearing passed by Atty R Garza's office they did nto have it on their calendar will submit order resetting 3/19/14 DSANCHEZ/pg 03/12/2014 Document Filed Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Deficient Expert Report of Erin K O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,INC-CSp and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's 03/18/2014 Rule 11 Agreement Rule 11 Agreement 03/19/2014 CANCELED Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David) Other 03/25/2014 Document Filed3/16/15, 12:01 PM

Page 2 of 3 http://co.cameron.tx.us/publicaccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2447373 03/25/2014 Document Filed Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Objection to Plaintiff's Second Deficient Expert Report of Erin K. O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,Inc-CSP and Motion to Dismiss 04/02/2014 Motion Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David) ON DEF VBMCB OBJECTIONS 2 PLAINTIFF'S 2ND DEFICIENT EXPERT REPORT OF ERIN KO'MALLEY & MTN 2 DISMISS 04/02/2014 Journal Entry Both Atty's appeared, arguments made. DSANCHEZ/mrl 04/02/2014 Exhibits Exhibits 1 & 10/31/2014 Motion Plaintiff's Motion for Status Hearing on Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center Objections 11/13/2014 Order Setting Hearing (Judicial Officer: Sanchez, David ) Order Setting Hearing 12/03/2014 Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David) 12/10/2014 Order (Judicial Officer: Sanchez, David ) Order on Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Objections to Plaintiff's Second Deficient Expert Report of Erin K. O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,Inc-CSP and Motion to Dismiss 12/29/2014 Notice of Appeal Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Notice of Appeal 12/30/2014 Appeals Memorandum Appeals Memorandum 12/30/2014 Appeals Schedule Appeals Schedule 01/06/2015 Correspondence Correspondence from 13th Court of Appeals for Attorney 01/07/2015 No Fee Documents(Civil) Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Designation of Clerk's Record 01/07/2015 No Fee Documents(Civil) Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Designation of Reporter's Record 01/29/2015 Clerks Record Estimate Clerks Record Estimate Emailed to willhughes@adamsgraham.com Paid 02/03/2015 No Fee Documents(Civil) Attorney Vacation Letter 02/06/2015 Clerk's Record Clerks Record Volume 01 02/06/2015 Clerks Journal Clerk's Record Volume 001 electronically submitted to the 13th Court of Appeals and Emailed to willhughes@adamsgraham.com F INANCIAL I NFORMATION

Defendant VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER Total Financial Assessment 235.00 Total Payments and Credits 235.00 Balance Due as of 03/16/2015 0.00
09/03/2013 Transaction Assessment 32.00 09/03/2013 Payment Receipt # 2013-29020 hughes, will (32.00) 09/03/2013 Transaction Assessment 2.00 09/03/2013 Payment Receipt # 2013-29021 hughes, will (2.00) 03/12/2014 Transaction Assessment 2.00 03/14/2014 Payment Receipt # 2014-09071 HUGHES, WILBERT (WILL) (2.00) 12/29/2014 Transaction Assessment 67.00 12/29/2014 E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # 2014-52014 VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER (67.00) 01/07/2015 Transaction Assessment 2.00 01/07/2015 E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # 2015-00882 VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER (2.00) 02/03/2015 Transaction Assessment 2.00 02/03/2015 E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # 2015-05567 VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER (2.00) 02/04/2015 Transaction Assessment 128.00 02/04/2015 Payment Receipt # 2015-05643 ADAMS & GRAHAM (128.00)

Plaintiff BATTLES, ROSALINDA Total Financial Assessment 287.00 Total Payments and Credits 287.00 Balance Due as of 03/16/2015 0.00
07/25/2013 Transaction Assessment 247.00 07/25/2013 Transaction Assessment 8.00 07/25/2013 Transaction Assessment 30.00 07/25/2013 Payment Receipt # 2013-24601 GARZA, ROBERT (285.00) 10/31/2014 Transaction Assessment 2.00 10/31/2014 E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # 2014-43183 BATTLES, ROSALINDA (2.00)3/16/15, 12:01 PM

Page 3 of 3 http://co.cameron.tx.us/publicaccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2447373