X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, Linda Jean Branum, challenges a summary judgment that she take nothing by her action for medical negligence under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act against the appellees, Northwest Texas Healthcare System Inc., d/b/a Amarillo Medical Service; Baptist St. Anthony’s Hospital Corp., d/b/a Baptist St. Anthony’s Health System; and Owen Grossman, M.D., (Northwest, et al.). HOLDING:Affirmed. Where a motion is presented under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) asserting there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of the nonmovant’s claims upon which the nonmovant would have the burden of proof at trial, the movant does not bear the burden of establishing each element of its own claim or defense as under subparagraph (a) or (b). Rather, although the nonmoving party is not required to marshal its proof, it must present evidence that raises a genuine fact issue on the challenged elements. Roth v. FFP Operating Partners, 994 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.App. Amarillo 1999, pet. denied). Instead of presenting a broad form issue which authorizes argument of all possible grounds upon which summary judgment should have been denied, see Malooly Brothers Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970), Branum presents three issues which the court considers together. Focusing on the third issue, Branum contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment before granting her motion for adoption of level three discovery control plan and ordering expert designation to be conducted in accordance therewith. As material here, alleging an “adequate time for discovery,” and after identifying the elements of Branum’s cause of action, Northwest et al. moved for summary judgment on the ground there was no evidence of one or more essential elements. Branum did not except to the motion nor claim it was not adequate to “define the issues and to put” her on notice with adequate information to oppose the motion, or otherwise proper under Rule 166a(i). See Inwood Forest, Etc. v. R.J.S. Development, 630 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ). More important however, Branum did not produce any summary judgment evidence, expert or otherwise, to establish the appropriate standard of care, a breach thereof, or that her injuries were proximately caused by Northwest, et al. Branum argues that because Rule 190.4 required the trial court to convert the discovery to a level three discovery control plan, the “adequate time for discovery” provision of Rule 166a(i) also controlled the level three discovery control plan. The court disagrees. Even if the trial court was required to convert discovery to level three, a question the court does not decide, in McClure v. Attebury, 20 S.W.3d 722 (Tex.App. � Amarillo 1999, no pet.), this court held whether an “adequate time for discovery” has been provided is case specific. Branum does not contend she did not have adequate time for discovery; however, as material to her contention, because the question of adequate time is case specific, the court declines to impose the bright-line rule suggested by Branum. In Restaurant Teams Intern. v. MG Securities, 95 S.W.3d 336, 339 (Tex.App. � Dallas 2002, no pet.), the court held: “Neither rule 166a(i) nor the comment thereto states that the discovery period applicable to a case by virtue of rule 190 must have ended before a no-evidence summary judgment may be granted. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i) & cmt. Instead, the rule merely requires “adequate time” for discovery. Id. We will not read such a bright-line requirement into the rule when its language reflects that a more flexible approach was intended.” Moreover, Branum did not file a sworn motion for continuance as permitted by Rule 252 and did not file an affidavit stating why she needed additional time for discovery, as required by Rule 166a(g). Jaimes v. Fiesta Mart Inc., 21 S.W.3d 301 (Tex.App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). OPINION:Reavis, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.