MacK Gwen Jones v. Iliana Gonzalez Quiroga
06-17-00016-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Car wreck in Mount Pleasant; Quiroga sued Jones and obtained a bench judgment for $7,800.00 (consisting of $7,405.50 in medical bills from three providers and $394.50 in lost wages/tips).
- Quiroga offered three providers' billing records each accompanied by a business-records affidavit; no medical expert testimony was presented.
- Jones objected at trial that he had not received the billing records/affidavits before trial (and also objected to copies), asserting lack of required pretrial notice under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 18.001.
- The trial court admitted the three exhibits at trial; judgment incorporated the three bills.
- On appeal Jones argued admission violated the 30-day service requirement of § 18.001 and thus the affidavits could not substitute for expert proof of reasonableness and necessity.
- The Court of Appeals found error in admitting the affidavits for lack of timely notice, held the error was harmful, deleted $7,405.50 from the judgment, and affirmed $394.50 plus costs and post-judgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of objection to admission of affidavits/records | Quiroga: Jones only objected to unrelated testimony about insurance, so he failed to preserve complaint about notice under § 18.001 | Jones: He specifically objected at trial that he had not seen the records/affidavits and that they weren’t produced before trial, which put the court on notice | Preserved — Jones’ contemporaneous objections were sufficiently specific to alert the court and allow correction |
| Admissibility of medical bills via business-records affidavits (§ 18.001) | Quiroga: Records were "properly authenticated" and filed; affidavits satisfy proof of necessity/reasonableness | Jones: Quiroga failed to serve the affidavits on him at least 30 days before trial as required by § 18.001(d) | Error to admit affidavits; record contains no evidence service occurred 30 days before trial, so § 18.001 notice requirement was not met |
| Harm and effect on damages | Quiroga: Even if technical error, the bills show amounts and judge could credit them | Jones: Admission of affidavits was the sole proof of necessity/reasonableness; without them damages cannot stand | Harmful error: without properly admitted affidavits there was no evidence of amount/necessity/reasonableness for the $7,405.50 medical charges; appellate court struck that portion and rendered take-nothing as to medical claims |
| Remedy | Quiroga: Request to uphold full award | Jones: Request to delete medical damages and affirm remainder | Modified judgment: delete $7,405.50; affirm $394.50 for wages/tips plus costs and post-judgment interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 15 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998) (appellate review—uphold evidentiary ruling if any legitimate basis exists)
- Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2001) (erroneous legal conclusions constitute abuse of discretion)
- Hilland v. Arnold, 856 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1993) (affidavits under § 18.001 can establish medical necessity/reasonableness absent controverting affidavit)
- Texarkana Mem’l. Hosp., Inc. v. Murdock, 946 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. 1997) (medical expenses must be proven reasonable and necessary)
- U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Waldrip, 380 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2012) (when evidence is legally insufficient on elements, appellate court renders take-nothing on that claim)