in Re Ruben Gonzalez
04-15-00553-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 15, 2015Background
- Auto collision on Feb. 14, 2012; Relator Ruben Gonzalez sued for injuries to his cervical spine and later cross-claimed against real parties in interest (Premier and Casillas).
- Gonzalez's treating/expert Dr. Gerardo Zavala recommended a four-level cervical disc surgery; Gonzalez later underwent a one-level cervical surgery on July 14, 2015 performed by Dr. Alejandro J. Betancourt (an undisclosed provider until after surgery).
- Real parties filed a renewed motion to compel a Rule 204 medical examination to assess Gonzalez’s current cervical condition and whether he would benefit from surgery; trial court ordered an exam by Dr. Gilbert R. Meadows.
- Real parties contend existing records and depositions are insufficient: discrepancies between Zavala’s four-level recommendation and Betancourt’s one-level surgery, lack of Betancourt/hospital records, and surveillance suggesting symptom exaggeration.
- Gonzalez sought mandamus relief to prevent the ordered exam; real parties oppose mandamus arguing good cause (relevance, nexus, and lack of less intrusive means) and necessity given conflicting medical opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in finding good cause for a Rule 204 medical exam | Gonzalez: exam unnecessary because he already had surgery and available records/expert conclusions make the exam moot | Real parties: exam remains necessary given conflicting surgeon opinions, missing records, and need for current, independent assessment | Trial court found good cause and ordered exam; real parties argue this was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether less intrusive means existed to obtain the same information | Gonzalez: real parties could depose treating/surgeon doctors and conduct post‑surgery discovery instead of an exam | Real parties: Betancourt wasn’t disclosed until after motion/surgery, records not produced, Zavala was deposed earlier, and available materials are inadequate | Court concluded less intrusive means were inadequate; ordered exam |
Key Cases Cited
- CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and standards for issuance)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (trial-court abuse of discretion standard)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jefferson Assocs., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus requirements: clear abuse and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
- In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (discovery’s purpose to reveal truth; appellate deference to trial court on discretionary matters)
- Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) (heavy burden to show clear abuse of discretion)
- Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1988) (Rule 204 requires condition in controversy)
- Transwestern Publ’g Co. v. O’Quinn, 96 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (orig. proceeding) (three-element good cause test for medical exams)
- Exxon Corp. v. Starr, 790 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1990) (orig. proceeding) (noninvasive exams may explore matters beyond treating-provider reports)
- Sherwood Lane Assocs. v. O’Neil, 782 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (no writ) (permitting examinations to enable independent observations)
- In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc., 435 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (orig. proceeding) (when less intrusive information is inadequate, court may order physical exam)