McAllen Hospitals, L.P., McAllen Hospitals, L.P. D/B/A McAllen Medical Center, McAllen Medical Center, McAllen Hospitals, L.P. D/B/A South Texas Health System and South Texas Health System v. Mario I. Rodriguez and Liduvina Iracheta, Individually and as Next Friends of XXXX, a Minor
13-15-00362-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs sued health‑care providers after a child sustained catastrophic brain injuries; McAllen Medical Center (MMC) was added as a defendant in an amended petition.
- MMC’s insurer (JUA) instructed Gonzalez & Castillo to obtain a Rule 11 extension of MMC’s answer date and authorized Gonzalez & Castillo to accept service of Plaintiffs’ Chapter 74 expert reports on MMC’s behalf.
- Plaintiffs served the expert reports on Gonzalez & Castillo on October 11, 2013 and executed a Rule 11 letter confirming (1) authorization to accept service and (2) actual receipt on behalf of MMC.
- New counsel (Hole) later entered an appearance for MMC, initially objected to timeliness, then withdrew that objection in February 2014 after JUA confirmed prior authorization; discovery proceeded for ~18 months.
- On the eve of trial MMC moved to dismiss for untimely expert reports; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing (including live testimony from Gonzalez) and denied MMC’s motion; MMC appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s denial can be affirmed on an unchallenged ground | Plaintiffs: MMC waived its Chapter 74 objection; appellees argued waiver below and urged affirmance on that independent basis | MMC: challenges only timeliness of service on appeal | Court may affirm on waiver because MMC failed to challenge that independent ground on appeal |
| Whether MMC waived its right to object to timeliness | Plaintiffs: MMC’s counsel withdrew objections in Feb 2014 and remained silent for 18 months — intentional relinquishment or conduct inconsistent with asserting the right | MMC: contends objections preserved and timeliness not satisfied | Trial court did not abuse discretion — waiver found based on withdrawal and extended silence |
| Whether service on Gonzalez & Castillo satisfied Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351 | Plaintiffs: JUA authorized Gonzalez & Castillo to accept service; Rule 11 agreement acknowledged authorization and receipt, so service was effective and timely | MMC: contends Gonzalez & Castillo were not retained to represent MMC re: these reports and raises manner/attorney‑in‑charge objections | Trial court found JUA authorized counsel and Rule 11 agreement binding; service on those attorneys satisfied § 74.351 |
| Evidentiary objections to emails and documents | Plaintiffs: documents were authenticated by witness testimony; many were party admissions or otherwise admissible | MMC: objected to hearsay and authenticity of insurance‑company documents | Trial court properly admitted the evidence or any error was waived/harmless; admissions and witness testimony supported authenticity and admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (standard of review for denial of motion to dismiss under § 74.351)
- Jernigan v. Langley, 111 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. 2003) (Chapter 74 rights may be waived under traditional waiver principles)
- U.S. Lawns, Inc. v. Castillo, 347 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, pet. denied) (appellant must challenge every independent ground supporting adverse ruling)
- Fulp v. Miller, 286 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.) (discusses who qualifies as attorney for service under Chapter 74 and Rule 8)
- Northern County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davalos, 140 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2004) (insurer may have authority to select counsel and control defense)
- Rosemond v. Al‑Lahiq, 331 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011) (when reviewing discretionary rulings, appellate courts imply necessary findings supported by the evidence)