Gloria Hicks v. Group & Pension Administrators, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 518

GPA was a finalist to administer CCISD’s self-funded health plan; CCISD initially indicated it would award GPA the contract but ultimately awarded it to another bidder.
Gloria Hicks, a member of Corpus Christi Medical Center’s board, emailed CCISD trustees warning that GPA was "difficult" with providers and that hospitals might bill CCISD employees if GPA were selected.
GPA sued Hicks (and later added Bay Area Healthcare Group and Gulf Coast Division — "Hospital Defendants") asserting business disparagement, tortious interference with prospective relations, and later conspiracy/joint enterprise and coercion of a public servant claims based on the emails.
Hicks and the Hospital Defendants filed motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA/Anti‑SLAPP statute); the trial court denied both motions and the defendants appealed interlocutorily.
The court held Hicks’s TCPA motion was untimely as to the business disparagement and tortious interference claims (those were pleaded in the original petition) but timely as to the new conspiracy and coercion claims added in the amended petition.
The court found Hicks’s emails were communications on matters of public concern (health/economic well‑being and marketplace services) and thus protected under the TCPA, and it reversed dismissal denials accordingly for certain claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (GPA)	Defendant's Argument (Hicks/Hospitals)	Held
Jurisdiction over Hicks’s interlocutory appeal	Denial is not appealable if motion was effectively a request for leave	Hicks filed a substantive TCPA motion; denial is appealable under §51.014(a)(12)	Court has jurisdiction; appeal allowed
Timeliness of Hicks’s TCPA motion	Amended petition resets 60‑day TCPA filing window	60‑day clock runs from service of the original legal action unless new claims/parties are added	Motion untimely as to claims in original petition; timely as to new conspiracy and coercion claims added in amended petition
Whether Hicks’s emails are protected under the TCPA	Emails are private/commercial or constitute criminal coercion, so not protected	Emails are communications about public matters (health, community well‑being, marketplace services) and are not threats; thus protected	Emails are protected speech; do not constitute coercion; commercial‑speech exception does not apply
Whether GPA established prima facie evidence to defeat dismissal (causation and other elements of claims)	GPA relied on declarations and pleadings to show falsity, malice, causation, lost contract	Defendants argued GPA’s evidence was conclusory/hearsay and failed to show causation or unlawful acts	Court: GPA failed to present clear and specific evidence of causation or other essential elements; conspiracy/coercion claims dismissed as to Hicks; all claims against Hospital Defendants dismissed

Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (statutory definition of "communication" under the TCPA includes private and public communications)
In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (TCPA requires plaintiff to present clear and specific evidence establishing prima facie case; pleadings and affidavits must show factual basis)
In re Estate of Check, 438 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (amended pleading that does not add new claims or parties does not reset TCPA filing deadline)
Ward v. Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Dallas, 401 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (definition of "legal action" treats claims by parties individually; new claims can trigger a new TCPA deadline)
Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, 124 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 2003) (elements of business disparagement)
St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2003) (elements and analysis for joint enterprise)