Gloria Ochoa v. Nail Flower Beauty Salon
04-14-00509-CV
| Tex. App. | May 5, 2015Background
- Gloria E. Ochoa appeals a June 19, 2014 summary judgment against her in a personal-injury suit stemming from a manicure at Nail Flower Beauty Salon on 8/9/2011.
- Appellant claimed a severe staph infection caused ongoing pain, disfigurement, and medical treatment.
- Appellee opposed the claims and the trial court granted summary judgment on June 19, 2014.
- Appellant filed an appeal and the Fourth Court of Appeals issued multiple briefing orders due to deficiencies in the amended briefs.
- The court ultimately struck the appellant’s brief for Rule 38.1 deficiencies and granted extensions to file an amended brief, with proceedings ongoing as of early 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the motion for new trial | Ochoa argues the motion was timely. | The record does not clearly support timeliness (implied). | Unclear; briefing deficiencies prevented merits ruling on timeliness. |
| Judgment contrary to law | The judgment was contrary to law. | Not explicitly stated in the record summary; presumed that judgment complied with law. | Not decided on merits; briefing deficiencies impede determination. |
| Inability to present reasons due to late response | Movant could not timely respond because of illness and medical care. | Not specifically addressed in the available record excerpt. | Not resolved; issues waived pending proper briefing. |
| Accident or mistake as cause for not answering timely | The delay was due to accident/mistake, not intentional indifference. | Not explicitly stated in the excerpt. | Not resolved; dependent on corrected briefing. |
| Appellant's lack of counsel and ongoing medical care | Ochoa was unrepresented due to attorney withdrawal and health issues. | Not explicitly stated in the excerpt. | Not resolved; contingent on proper briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beauty Shops, Inc. v Foreman, 319 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958) (Elements and standards related to negligence and professional duties in cosmetology)
- Dickey v Jackson, 193 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Civ. App. Galveston 1927) (Limited review of damages in tort; five elements of negligence discussed)