399 S.W.3d 615
Tex. App.2013Background
- HHSC appeals two interlocutory orders—May 2012 temporary injunction and August 2012 modified temporary injunction—arising from Advocates' challenge to MTP EPSDT transportation accompaniment rule.
- Advocates sought a declaration that Tex. Admin. Code § 380.207(4) contravened EPSDT statutes and federal Medicaid transportation requirements, and requested permanent injunctions.
- The May injunction precluded strict accompaniment requirements and a narrow EPSDT interpretation but lacked bond and trial-date provisions, prompting an interlocutory appeal by HHSC.
- HHSC refrained from enforcing the May injunction after filing the appeal and instituted a process allowing designated adults to accompany children; HHSC proposed amendments to broaden accompaniment.
- Advocates moved for an Expanded Temporary Injunction; after another evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered the August injunction, which preserved May relief, added a bond and trial date, and expanded prohibitions to prohibit certain authorization processes.
- HHSC appeals the August order as void or voidable, and Advocates contend the August order superseded the May order and mooted the first appeal; the court analyzes Rule 29.5, supersedeas, Rule 683/684 compliance, and mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does August violate TRAP 29.5 or supersedeas rights? | HHSC asserts the August order, issued during an appeal, impermissibly interferes with the pending appeal and its supersedeas. | HHSC contends the trial court lost authority to modify while on appeal and the August order violates supersedeas. | August order did not violate TRAP 29.5 or supersedeas; amendments permitted and did not impair appellate relief. |
| Is the May injunction appeal moot? | HHSC claims May order void ab initio; amended order moots the appeal. | Advocates maintain the appeal remains live until merits are resolved; rule changes do not moot since amended order may alter rights. | Appeal from May injunction is moot for lack of justiciable controversy; dismiss as moot. |
| Does August comply with Rule 683? | Parts (c) and (d) of August lack specific statutory/contractual basis and are too vague. | Parts (a) and (b) are sufficiently specific; (c) and (d) exceed Rule 683 requirements. | Parts (c) and (d) vacated for noncompliance with Rule 683; parts (a) and (b) upheld. |
| Did HHSC prove probable, imminent, irreparable injury for parts (a) and (b)? | Advocates showed harm to EPSDT services and potential irreparable injury from delayed treatment. | HHSC challenges the sufficiency of evidence showing imminent/irreparable harm. | The record supports probable, imminent, irreparable injury to plaintiffs for parts (a) and (b). |
| Did Advocates establish probable right to recovery? | Statutory and regulatory schemes could support Advocates' challenge to the MTP rule’s validity. | HHSC argues there was insufficient basis for a probable right to recovery. | Record supports a probable right to recovery for Advocates on the underlying claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Qwest Communications International, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (injunction standards; appellate review of temporary relief)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (irreparable injury and temporary injunction standards)
- Lozano v. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. 2001) (circumstantial evidence may show material facts in domestic-relations context)
- Eastern Energy, Inc. v. SBY P’ship, 750 S.W.2d 5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (TRAP Rule 29.5 considerations; modification of injunctions)
- Tanguy v. Laux, 259 S.W.3d 851 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (amended injunctions and appellate treatment; same-subject-matter concept)
- Ahmed v. Shimi Ventures, L.P., 99 S.W.3d 682 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (modified injunctions and mootness principles)
- In re Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 967 S.W.2d 358 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998) (super-sedeas and injunctions in administrative appeals)
- In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1999) (supersedeas and bond considerations in appellate context)