the Good Shepherd Hospital, Inc. D/B/A Christus Good Shepherd Medical Center Longview v. Select Specialty Hospital - Longview, Inc.
563 S.W.3d 923
| Tex. App. | 2018Background
- Select Specialty Hospital (Select) leases space on Good Shepherd Hospital’s first two floors and operates a long-term acute care facility there; services for Select’s patients were provided under a 2002 Ancillary Agreement and a 2012 Purchased Service Agreement (PSA).
- Christus took over Good Shepherd and Good Shepherd offered to buy out Select’s lease and PSA; Select refused and Good Shepherd later gave written notice terminating the PSA (invoking a 90-day termination provision).
- Select sued for breach and anticipatory breach of the lease/Ancillary Agreement/PSA and sought a temporary injunction to prevent Good Shepherd from cutting off services that Select said were essential to patient care.
- The trial court granted a temporary injunction seven days after filing, enjoining Good Shepherd from terminating the PSA, refusing services, interfering with possession, changing referral processes, restricting access to patient information, or refusing services that would materially compromise patient health; it found Select showed probable right to relief and probable, imminent, irreparable injury.
- On interlocutory appeal, Good Shepherd argued the contracts allowed termination (PSA superseded Ancillary Agreement; PSA allowed termination without cause) and that the trial court’s ruling involved legal questions requiring de novo review.
- The Court of Appeals held the temporary injunction was void because the trial court’s order failed to state specific, legally sufficient factual reasons as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683, and remanded without deciding the substantive contract issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a temporary injunction was properly issued | Select: likely to succeed on breach/anticipatory breach; loss of services would cause imminent, irreparable harm to patients and force facility closure | Good Shepherd: contracts permit termination (PSA supersedes Ancillary Agreement; 90‑day without-cause termination); lease imposes no ancillary-service obligation | Injunction void: trial court’s findings were conclusory and failed Rule 683’s required specific factual reasons |
| Whether Select showed a probable right to relief on breach/anticipatory breach claims | Select: services historically provided under agreements, threatened discontinuation amounts to repudiation/breach | Good Shepherd: contractual language defeats breach claims; termination was permitted by PSA | Court did not decide merits; held trial court’s order lacked specific factual findings to support probable right conclusion |
| Whether Select demonstrated probable, imminent, irreparable injury with no adequate remedy at law | Select: patient harm (including death) and business shutdown are irreparable; monetary damages inadequate | Good Shepherd: monetary damages and other remedies may be adequate; contested facts on feasibility of alternatives | Court held injunction’s recitals of injury were conclusory and did not explain how irreparable harm flowed from a probable breach or that legal remedies were inadequate |
| Whether the injunction complied with Rule 683 (must state reasons and be specific) | Select: order’s statements suffice to preserve status quo and protect patients | Good Shepherd: order must meet Rule 683 and was deficient | Held: order failed Rule 683 specificity requirement; thus injunction is void and dissolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartwell v. Lone Star, PCA, 528 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017) (standard for temporary injunction: cause of action, probable right, probable imminent irreparable injury)
- Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (Rule 683 requirements are mandatory; noncompliant injunctions are void)
- Arkoma Basin Expl. Co. v. FMF Assos. 1990–A, Ltd., 249 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2008) (conclusory findings insufficient; definition of conclusory explained)
- DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1990) (plaintiff need only show likelihood of success for temporary injunctive relief)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (appellate review: no deference on pure questions of law)
- Indep. Capital Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (Rule 683’s requirement that orders state reasons and be specific; strict compliance required)