in Re Valero Refining-Texas, L.P., 01-15-00566-CV

Background

On Jan. 12, 2011, Valero’s Texas City refinery experienced an overfill release; Vernon Fox was near the spill, entered a vapor cloud, and later reported symptoms and treatment for major depressive disorder and PTSD.
Fox presented treating and retained experts (psychiatrists, psychologist) linking his PTSD/neurocognitive injury to the exposure; Valero’s experts acknowledged exposure and that H₂S is a neurotoxin, and one Valero expert conceded Fox’s experts "could be right."
After a jury verdict adverse to Fox, Judge Brent Griffin granted a new trial; Griffin later left office.
Successor Judge Patricia Grady denied Valero’s motion for reconsideration in a one‑page order that did not state reasons.
Valero sought mandamus relief from the appellate court attacking Griffin’s new‑trial order; Fox (real parties) responded that mandamus is improper because the writ must be directed to the current judge, Judge Grady, and Valero failed to develop the mandamus record or request reasons in the trial court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Valero)	Defendant's Argument (Fox)	Held (per response)
1. Whether mandamus may be used to challenge a predecessor judge’s new‑trial order	Mandamus should undo Griffin’s new‑trial order as erroneous	Mandamus cannot be directed at a judge who no longer holds office; Valero attacked the wrong order and failed to seek reasons from the successor judge	Mandamus improper against predecessor; relief must be sought from successor or record must show successor’s reasons
2. Whether Judge Grady abused discretion by denying reconsideration without stated reasons	A one‑page denial without reasons is an abuse and mandates mandamus relief	Grady’s order need not state reasons; Valero never asked her to provide them, so the mandamus record is inadequate	Denial of reconsideration is not necessarily an abuse; absence of reasons in the file defeats mandamus when relator did not seek clarification
3. Whether Judge Griffin’s new‑trial ruling lacked evidentiary support	Griffin’s order was unsupported by the evidence and relied on improper credibility determinations	Griffin heard live testimony and credited expert and treating‑physician evidence; Valero’s experts did not conclusively refute causation	Live observation and admitted expert testimony can support a new trial; record does not show Griffin acted without guiding principles
4. Whether Fox presented legally sufficient proof of physical injury and causation	Fox’s damages are merely mental anguish; insufficient proof of general/specific causation	Fox alleged PTSD as a physical brain injury from exposure; Valero’s own expert conceded H₂S is a neurotoxin and that exposure can damage the brain	Evidence of PTSD as physical injury and expert testimony about H₂S exposure/support causation undermines a clear‑error claim; mandamus inappropriate

Key Cases Cited

In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2008) (successor judge considerations in mandamus proceedings)
In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 289 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. 2009) (successor judge’s refusal to reconsider a predecessor’s order governs review)
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2007) (trial court’s discretion to grant new trial and sufficiency of order)
In re Cook, 356 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. 2011) (successor judge’s order supersedes predecessor’s order for mandamus purposes)
In re United Scaffolding, 377 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2012) (mandamus burden and sufficiency of new‑trial order explanation)
In re Schmitz, 285 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. 2009) (writ must be directed to a specific judge)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard: clear abuse of discretion and inadequate remedy at law)
Slaughter v. Abilene State School, 561 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. 1977) (expert opinion based on subjective complaints can be admissible)