667 S.W.3d 297
Tex.2023Background
- Car accident; plaintiff Antonio Estrada sought $19,321 in past medical expenses and served a §18.001 affidavit claiming those charges were reasonable and necessary.
- Defendants (Mario Rangel and employer Chefs’ Produce) served a timely counteraffidavit from Dr. Benny Sanchez (anesthesiologist/pain-management physician with 30+ years’ experience) challenging necessity and reasonableness of portions of Estrada’s care.
- Dr. Sanchez opined some care was medically unnecessary (e.g., shoulder MRI and shoulder-block injection) and that other necessary care was billed at inflated rates, comparing charges to Medicare, Healthcare Bluebook (Houston), and his own cash price.
- Estrada moved to strike the counteraffidavit, arguing it impermissibly attacked causation, failed to provide reasonable notice, and relied on unreliable bases; the trial court struck the affidavit and precluded Dr. Sanchez from testifying.
- After this court issued In re Allstate (clarifying §18.001 practice), defendants sought reconsideration; the trial court denied it, defendants pursued mandamus relief in the Texas Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking the counteraffidavit under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §18.001(f) | The counteraffidavit fails statutory requirements and should be struck | Counteraffidavit complies with §18.001(f) and gave required notice; striking it was error | Court: Trial court abused its discretion; counteraffidavit satisfied §18.001(f) (Allstate controls) |
| Whether inclusion of a causation opinion in the counteraffidavit invalidates it | Presence of causation opinion renders the counteraffidavit improper | Inclusion of causation opinion does not invalidate an otherwise-compliant counteraffidavit | Court: Inclusion of causation opinion does not void the counteraffidavit; causation opinion just isn’t made admissible solely by its inclusion |
| Whether the bases/methods Dr. Sanchez used (Medicare, Healthcare Bluebook, his cash price) were unreliable such that the counteraffidavit must be struck | Estrada: those pricing sources are unreliable and do not provide reasonable notice or admissible opinion | Defendants: the counteraffidavit gives reasonable notice of the bases; reliability challenges are for Robinson motions or trial cross-examination | Court: Notice requirement met; reliability can be tested by Robinson motion or at trial; not a proper ground to strike under §18.001(f) |
| Whether defendants lack an adequate appellate remedy (mandamus appropriate) | Estrada: order is narrower than Allstate and appellate review is sufficient | Defendants: striking their only retained expert would foreclose meaningful defense and render appeal inadequate | Court: Defendants lack adequate remedy by appeal because the order effectively prevents expert rebuttal; mandamus warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Allstate Indemnity Insurance Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021) (clarified §18.001 practice: what constitutes reasonable notice and that counteraffidavit compliance, not immediate admissibility, governs striking)
- In re Gonzales, 619 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. 2021) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and adequacy of appellate remedy)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (appellate remedy adequacy test for mandamus review)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (standards for expert-opinion reliability and admissibility)
- In re Kings Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 303 S.W.3d 773 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (mandamus appropriate where striking expert designation deprived party of essential defense)
- Beamon v. O'Neill, 865 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (striking expert can make appellate review inadequate when experts are central to defense)