NO. 07-08 -038 0-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER31, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ In re AM AN DA

SOTO, Indi v idu all y

and as Next F ri end of RA YVEN SOTO, SOY LA R EY NA , and VIC TOR SOTO, Rel ator

_________

_________

_________

______ Opinion on Original Proc eedi ng fo r Writ of M

andamus

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Pendi ng before the c our t i s a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus fil ed by Amanda Soto, ind iv idu all y

and as next fri end of R ayv en Sot o, S oy la Rey na, a nd Vi cto r Soto. Throug h the peti ti on, t he Sot os ask

us to order

the Hon orabl e R uben G. R ey es, 72 Ju dic ial D is tr ict, nd “t o rev oke his Order

C ompell ing M edi cal Aut hor iz ati on.” W e deny the peti ti on. Back gr ound T he d isp ute arises f rom a n au tom obile a cciden t inv olvi ng the So tos an d Joyce Edw ards. Th e Sotos s ued Ed w ards. Amand a, R ayv en, a nd Soy la all eg ed th at t hey suffered “ personal i nju ri es” and sought recov er y for medi cal ex pense s, pai n, ment al anguish, physical i mp airme nt, lostearning capa city, and disf iguremen t. Victor simply soug ht recov er

y for d amag es re lat ed to hi s v ehi cle a nd hi s i nabi li ty to use it

. Edw ardsA m edi cal aut hor i z at i on was al so sought f r om Vi ct or Sot o t hough he di d not av er t hat he su ffered 1 per sonal i nj ur i es.

E dw ard s ha d s ou gh t rec ord s de s c ri bi ng ea c h p l ai nti ff’ s m e d i c a l co nd i t i on si nc e t he i r r es pe c t i ve 2 b i rth s . 2 joi ned i ss ue and all eg ed, a mong othe r thi ng s, thateac h pl ain ti ff ’s “ medic al damag es . . . w ere prox ima te ly caused by [t hei r] pr ior

or su bseq uent medic al condi ti ons . . . unrela ted t o t h e s u bj e c ta c c i d e n t

. ” M o re o v e r , a re q u e s t fo r d i s c l o s u re w a s s e r

v e d u p o n e a c h p l a i n t i ff by Edw ards. I n it , she soug ht v ar iou s thi ng s inc lud ing “ [a]n ex ecut ed c opy of the a ttac hed aut horization pe rmitting the d is c lo sure of Plaintif f ’s med ical records and bills.” It is this 1 par ti cul ar req uestthati s a t i ss ue here. In t hei r w ri tten re spons e to the req uest , Amand a, i ndi v idu all y and o n b ehal f of Rayv en and Soy la, chang ed the w ordin g of the req uestto mir ro r the l ang uag e appea ri ng in Te x as Rule of

Civ il Procedu re 194 .2(j). Tha t rule perm its a p arty to request d isclosure of: in a suit alleging ph y sical o r men tal injury and dam ages f rom th e occu rrence tha t is the subje c t of

the case , all med ical records and bills that are re asona bly

rela ted to the inju ri es or damag es ass erted o r, i n l ieu thereof, an aut horization pe rmitting the disclosure of such m edica l records and bills. T his w as followed bytheir state me nt tha t “[a]ll m edica l reco rds a nd b ills tha t are reaso nab ly
re lat ed to the inj ur ies or damag es w il l be fil ed by aff ida v it and copi es w il l be furni shed to Defend ant ’s attorne y

of record.” In Victor’s reply , t he wording of the requestw as also
c h a n ge d wh ic h wo rd in g wa s t h e n fo ll o we d b y t h e wo rd s “[ n ] o t a p p li c a b le

. ” A d d i t io n a ll y, none of the pl ain ti ffs ex ecut ed the authori z ati on. This led Edw ards to mov e for an order
com pelling the So tos to sign th e docu me nt. A he aring w as he ld on th e mo tion, af ter w hich the trial court ordered “Plaintif fs [to] execute med ical au t h o ri z ation s perm itting defense couns el to ob tai n medi cal records from and after June 1, 20 04.” 23

Di sc uss ion The Sotos co ntend that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d iscret ion i n ent er ing the order allude d to. T his w as allegedly so becau se the relief ex ceed ed th e scop e of Rule 194 .2(j), the t ime per iod enc ompass ed by the author iz ati on w as ov er ly broad, and i t v iol ated the pati ent p hy si ci an pr iv il eg e. W e reje ct each arg ument. Reg ardin g the sco p e of Rul e 194. 2( j) , t he Sot os bel iev e tha t t he r ule g ra nts them lea v e to prov ide eit her the medic al re cords or an author iz ati on in re spons e to the req uest

. The opti on pur por

tedl y does not bel ong to the p arty re que st ing the infor mati on ( i. e. Edw ar ds h e re )

. T h e y

a re m i s t a k e n , a n d i n s o h o l d i n g , w e t u r n t o o u r o p i n i o n i n In re Shi pm on , 68 S.W .3d 8 15 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2001, o ri g . proceed ing ). There w e w ro te that under the “n ew ru les [of ci v il procedu re ] a par ty may obtai n dis cov er y of m edi cal
re cords of another

par ty or obta in an aut hor iz ati on from a nother par ty by req uestfor disclosure .” Id. at 820. M oreov er , t his w as sai d i n resp onse to t he c ontent ion thatone canno t be forced to create and ex ecut e a medi cal auth o riza ti o n . Giv en our pr ior in te rp re ta tion of R ule 194. 2( j) i n Shi pm on , w e c annot but c oncl ude here tha t t he opt ion b e l o n g s t o t h e p a rt y re q u e s t i n g d i s c l o s u re , n o t t h e o n e re s p o n d i n g t o i t

. If a l eg it imat e author iz ati on is soug ht, then the res pondentca nnot uni lat erall y co mply w it h the req uestby simp ly deliv ering selected med ical records. N ext, n on e of t he res po ns es p rop ou nd ed b y t he S ot os in c l ud ed o bj ec ti on s o r c l ai ms of priv ilege. This is trouble som e be cause the rules of civ il procedu re m a n d a t e a time in and manner

by w hic h obj ections and cl aims of pr iv il eg e rela ti ng to dis cov er y mustbe
ra is ed. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 1 93. 2(a) (stating thata party must object to wr itten discovery in w ri ti ng w it hin the ti me for respon se and s peci fy the l eg al and factu al basi s for theW h i l e th e S o to s d i d q u e s ti o n th e te m p o ra l b re a d th o f t h e a u th o riza ti o n s , th e c o m p l a i n t w a s n o t ra i s e d 3 a s r e q u ir e d b y th e r u le s o fp r o c e d u r e . N o n e th e le s s , t h e tr ia l c o u r t o r d e r e d th a t E d w a r d s c o u ld n o t o b ta in m edi cal r ecor ds i n exi st ence pr i or t o 20 04. W e f i nd n ot hi ng wr ong wi t h t hi s l i m i t at i on gi ven Edw ar ds’ al l egat i on t hat v ar i ous o ft he i nj ur i es al l egedl y suff er ed b y t he Sot os wer e caused by pr i or exi st i ng co ndi t i ons. T hi s l i m i t at i on e ff ect i v el y per m i t s hert o de v el op t hat cl ai m . As f or t he m at t er ofp ri vi l eg e, n one was ev er ra i s e d b e l o w . T h u s , it c a n n o t b e a s s e rte d h e re fo r th e fi rs t t i m e . In re L .M .I. , 119 S. W

. 3d 7 07, 711 ( T ex. 2 0 0 3 ). 4 obj ect ion ); T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 19 3.3 (a) (stating tha t the party claimin g a priv ilege may w ithho ld the i nformation bu t mus t, in the respon se or by se parate d ocument , 1) st ate t hat t he in fo rm a ti o n is b e in g w it h h e ld , 2) ide n ti f y th e requ e statiss u e , a n d 3) d isc lo se th e pri vile ge bei ng a s s e rt e d )

. F a i l i n g t o c o mp l y w i t h t h e s e p ro c e d u re s ma y l e a d t o w a i v er of the obj ect ion , T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 1 93. 2(e) (stating t hatt he o bjectio n is w aived if th e proce dure is not foll ow ed unles s the cour t ex cus es the w aiv er

for good caus e) , or of the pri v il eg e. In re Ander son , 163 S.W .3d 136 , 142 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 5, o rig. procee ding). Beca use the Sotos compl ied w it h nei ther ru le in ra is ing thei r obj ect ion s t o or a lleged priv ileges against respon ding, w e can notsaythatthe trial court ab used its disc re tion in enter ing the ord e r it d id. See Payton v . As hton , 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d 8 9 6 , 8 9 9 n . 3 (T e x. App.–A mari ll o 2000, no pet.) (h old ing that under the sta ndard of abused dis creti on, t he tr ial court’s de cision can be af f irmed on ground s unm ent ione d by the trial court or litig ant s). 3 Accordin gly , w e de ny the petitio n for ma nda mu s.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice