Opinion ID: 222047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mental Stability

Text: Appellant contends that the district court erred in finding no genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether Gazal was of unsound mind under § 16.0001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Persons of unsound mind are those who are mentally incompetent to care for themselves or manage their property and financial affairs. Hargraves v. Armco Foods, Inc., 894 S.W.2d 546, 547 (Tex.App.1995). The tolling provision on which appellant relies is intended to provide such persons with access to the courts and to account for their inability to participate in, control, or even understand the progression and disposition of their lawsuit. Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tex.1993). To extend the statute of limitations on this basis, a plaintiff must produce either 1) specific evidence that would enable the court to find that he did not have the mental capacity to pursue litigation; or 2) a fact-based expert opinion to that effect. See Chavez v. Davila, 143 S.W.3d 151, 156 (Tex.App.2004). The district court found that the proffered evidence on this issueaffidavits from Gazal, his wife, his son, and his treating physicianwas insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Gazal lacked the requisite mental capacity during the limitations period. We agree. The affidavits in question portray an individual whose illness and erratic behavior caused him pain and created emotional turmoil among his friends and family. In the words of his treating physician, Gazal was completely unable to manage his compulsive behavior, verbally abusive and unreasonable toward his wife and children, and overcome by anxiety, depression, gambling addiction, abnormal addiction and other generalized behavioral problems. His son described similar behavioral problems and stated that his father didn't even seem like the same person. His wife stated that it seemed as if [he] had lost his mind. On the other hand, Gazal managed to run and manage a very profitable company, to seek treatment first for his disease and then for the side effects he perceived were caused by Mirapex, and to reach out to casinos and friends to try to prevent further gambling losses. At no point did any of his doctors question his competence to care for himself and manage his affairs, nor did anyone take steps to have him declared legally incompetent. Without in any manner attempting to minimize the difficulties that Gazal faced in the last years of his life or the pain that his family experienced as a result, we conclude that the affidavits did not raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Gazal's behavioral problems and side effects were so severe as to render him legally incompetent. Consequently, the tolling provisions of § 16.0001 are unavailable.