Opinion ID: 894476
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plain and Ordinary Meaning

Text: However, we disagree with the proposition that a person must prove that he or she is not legally entitled to receive payment to negate the second prong of subsection (d). This interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute. The modifier legally is not found in the text of subsection (d). Indeed, a straightforward reading of subsection (d) leads to the conclusion that the adverb ordinarily modifies both the verb received and the verb phrase be entitled to receive. See, e.g., Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31, 38-39 (Tex.2000) (holding that modifier knowingly refers to two verb phrases separated by the disjunctive); Tovar v. State, 978 S.W.2d 584, 587 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (en banc) (determining that adverb knowingly modifies three predicate verbs connected by the conjunction or); Long v. United States, 199 F.2d 717, 719 (4th Cir.1952) (stating as a rule of grammatical construction that [t]he use of the adverb `forcibly' before the first of the string of verbs, with the disjunctive construction used only between the last two of them, shows quite plainly that the adverb is to be interpreted as modifying them all), quoted in United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40, 48 n. 14 (D.C.Cir.2002). Proof that Dr. McIntyre is not legally entitled to remuneration under any conceivable circumstance or theory is unnecessary. As the dissent in the court of appeals correctly observed, the court of appeals' definition would significantly alter, rather than clarify, the language and the common sense meaning of subsection (b)(1). [3] 59 S.W.3d at 830 (Patterson, J., dissenting). Thus, reading subsection (d) to require that the person seeking protection of the statute prove that he would neither ordinarily receive nor ordinarily be entitled to receive remuneration comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of the words of subsection (d) and ensures that this section is consistent with subsection (b)(1).