Richard Owen Taylor v. Medtox Diagnostic, Inc., Medtox Scientific, Inc., and Medtox Laboratories, Inc., 06-17-00032-CV

Background

Richard Owen Taylor, serving a 40-year sentence, tested positive for opiates on a prison-administered Sure-Screen drug test in November 2011; TDCJ disciplined him and forfeited good-time credit.
Taylor exhausted administrative remedies and sued Medtox entities (manufacturer/distributor of the Sure-Screen device) alleging negligence, fraudulent nondisclosure, and fraudulent misrepresentation about the device’s accuracy and SAMHSA compliance.
Medtox moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment addressing only Taylor’s negligence theories; the motion did not expressly challenge the fraud and misrepresentation claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Medtox on all claims and ordered Taylor take nothing; Taylor appealed only the denial as to his fraud-by-nondisclosure and fraudulent misrepresentation claims (he waived contesting the negligence rulings).
The court analyzed whether granting summary judgment on claims not covered by the motion was harmless under the limited exception when omitted causes are precluded as a matter of law, focusing on whether Taylor could recover on the unaddressed fraud claims given his pleadings and the summary-judgment record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by granting summary judgment on Taylor’s fraud-by-nondisclosure claim when Medtox’s motion targeted only negligence	Taylor: Medtox did not challenge fraud claims; court may not grant summary judgment on unraised grounds	Medtox: Even if not raised, the negligence showing negates recovery or the fraud claims are precluded as a matter of law	Court: No reversible error because Taylor’s own pleadings (judicial admissions) preclude reliance/inducement needed for nondisclosure; error was harmless
Whether trial court erred by granting summary judgment on fraudulent misrepresentation claim though not challenged in motion	Taylor: Misrepresentation claims remain; negligence motion didn’t address them	Medtox: Taylor cannot recover on misrepresentation because he did not purchase or receive the product or rely on package inserts	Court: Taylor could not have relied on the package insert (he never had it); thus he cannot recover and the summary-judgment error was harmless
Whether omitted causes can be affirmed when not argued in motion for summary judgment	Taylor: Rule 166a(c) prohibits granting on unasserted grounds	Medtox: Exception—if a ground proved/disproved in motion precludes omitted claims as a matter of law, affirmance is allowed	Court: Applies the narrow exception; affirmation permitted only because elements common to omitted claims made recovery impossible given Taylor’s pleadings
Whether Taylor’s pleadings operate as judicial admissions defeating his fraud claims	Taylor: Facts alleged were for all counts; still disputes fraud claims	Medtox: Pleadings admit no contractual relationship and that Sure-Screen is not sold over the counter—these admissions defeat reliance/inducement elements	Court: Treats those allegations as judicial admissions; they conclusively establish that Taylor could not have relied on the product literature, defeating fraud claims

Key Cases Cited

Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013) (summary-judgment grant reviewed de novo)
KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (defendant in traditional motion must conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s claim)
G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2011) (general rule: summary judgment reversible if granted on unraised claims, but narrow harmlessness exception exists)
Withrow v. State Farm Lloyds, 990 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999) (affirming summary judgment when omitted cause precluded as a matter of law)
Wilson v. Davis, 305 S.W.3d 57 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (narrow fit required to apply exception for unaddressed claims)
T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation)
Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (measures of damages for common-law fraud)