In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300

Plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez sued H.E.B. for negligence after allegedly tripping on an unsecured metal plate in an H.E.B. parking lot, claiming neck, shoulder, spinal, and other injuries and seeking damages; he had multiple treatments including two spinal surgeries and a possible need for further surgery.
While the H.E.B. suit was pending, Rodriguez was involved in a subsequent incident at Sam’s Club that may have caused additional head/neck injury; he sued Sam’s Club as well.
H.E.B. retained orthopedic expert Dr. William Swan, who reviewed records and issued a written opinion without examining Rodriguez, concluding a preexisting spinal condition and no acute MRI findings attributable to the fall.
H.E.B. moved under Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1 to have Rodriguez submit to a physical examination by Dr. Swan; the trial court denied the motion without explanation.
H.E.B. sought mandamus relief after the court of appeals denied relief; Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion and whether mandamus is appropriate because appeal is inadequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying H.E.B.’s Rule 204.1 motion for a physical examination	Rodriguez argued H.E.B. did not show good cause or nexus; Dr. Swan could form opinions from records; privacy outweighs intrusion	H.E.B. argued the exam is relevant, there is a reasonable nexus to injuries in controversy, less intrusive means are insufficient, and the Sam’s Club incident added new causation issues	Court held the trial court abused its discretion: H.E.B. met Rule 204.1’s good-cause and in-controversy requirements and is entitled to a single exam on reasonable terms
Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy (i.e., appeal inadequate)	Rodriguez implied that normal appeal is adequate and H.E.B. had not shown prejudice	H.E.B. argued denial prevents its expert from fully developing opinions and impairs a fair trial, leaving no adequate appellate remedy	Court held mandamus appropriate because denial would severely impair H.E.B.’s ability to present its defense and appeal would be inadequate

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to show both mandamus elements)
Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1988) (good-cause test for physical exams; balance privacy and fair trial)
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1964) (plaintiff who asserts physical injury places condition in controversy and gives defendant good cause for exam)
Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1995) (denial of discovery may go to the heart of the case when it prevents development of critical defense)
State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1984) (mandamus unavailable when adequate remedy at law exists)
In re McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (balancing benefits and detriments in deciding mandamus appropriateness)
In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (abuse of discretion occurs when trial court fails to correctly analyze or apply law)