Bret Johnston, Individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Karen Johnston v. Christus Spohn Health System Corporation D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Beeville ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
13-14-00418-CV
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
2/19/2015 9:28:16 AM
DORIAN RAMIREZ
CLERK
NO. 13-14-00418-CV
IN THE
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
13th COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
2/19/2015 9:28:16 AM
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
Clerk
BRET JOHNSTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
OF KAREN JOHNSTON, Appellants
vs.
CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH
SYSTEM CORPORATION D/ B/ A
CHRISTUS SPOHN HOSPITAL
BEEVILLE, Appellee
Appealed from the 36th District Court
Bee County, Texas
Cause No. B-11-1434-CV-A-1
Honorable Starr Bauer, Presiding Judge
OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS,
BRET JOHNSTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE ESTATE OF KAREN JOHNSTON
N orman R. Ladd
T exas State Bar N o. 24041 285
Kevin G. G iddens
Texas State Bar N o. 2407 6877
235 South Broadway, Suite 200
Tyler, T exas 75702
(903) 705-7211
(903) 705-7221 (FAX)
ATTO RNEYS FO R APPELLANTS
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF ALL PARTIES TO THE TRIAL
COURT'S ORDER APPEALED FROM, AND THE NAME AND ADDRESSES
OF ALL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL:
1. APPELLANTS~PLAINTIFFS
ARE BRET JOHNSTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
KAREN JOHNSTON.
2. TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS~PLAINTIFFS
BRET JOHNSTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE KAREN JOHNSTON IS LADD
& THIGPEN, PC, NORMAN R. LADD, III, AND KEVIN GIDDENS,
235 S. BROADWAY, SUITE 200, TYLER, TEXAS 75702.
3. APPELLEE~DEFENDANT IS CHRISTUS SPOHN SYSTEM
CORPORATION D/B/A CHRISTUS SPOHN HOSPITAL BEEVILLE.
4. TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE~DEFENDANT
IS NAMAN, HOWELL, SMITH & LEE, PLLC, RICHARD A.
MCNITZKY, 10001 REUNION PLACE, SUITE 600, SAN ANTONIO,
TEXAS 78216.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IDENTITY O F PARTIES AND COUNSEL ....... .. ........ ...... .... ....... ....... .. .......... ....... .. ..... .... ....... ...... .. ii
TABLE O F CONTENTS ...... ...... ..... ........ .. ....... ... .... .. ......... .. ...... .... .. ....... ...... .... ..... ...... ... ....... ........ .... iii
INDEX OF AUTHO RITIES ... ......... .... ....... ........ ... ...... ........... .. .............. ....... ... ........ ..... ... .... .... .... .... ... v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...... .... .. ... ...... .. .................. .. ........ .. ..................... ... ... ..... .... .. .. ..... .. .. ....... 1
ISSUES PRESENTED ........ ....................... .. ..... .... .... .... ....... .. .. .... .. .... ......... ... ...... .. ..... .............. .. .... ...... 3
STATEMENT O F FACTS .. .. ......... .. .. ... ......... ... ... .......... ........... .................... .... .... ... ... ........ .. ................ 4
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........ .. ...... ............. ....... .. ...... ... ............................. ... ....... ............. 5
ARGUMENT ........................ ........... ...... ..... .. ....... .... .......... ......... ................ .... .. .......... .. ..................... ...6
I. Standard of Review .... ...... ............... ...... ...................... .... .. .... .... .... .. .... ...... ...... ........ ............ .......... .... 6
II. ISSUE NO. 1 Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Granting Appellee's N o-
Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment ....... .... .... .......................... .. .. ...... .. .. .. 6
SUB-ISSUE N O . 1 Whether Appellant presented a scintilla of evidence as to Appellee's
negligent credentialing... .. ..... ... ........... ... ... ...... ....... ..... .. ..... .. ...... ........ .. .. .... ......... 6
A The Trial Court abused its discretion in finding that Appellant presented no
evidence as to Appellee acting with malice during the credentialing of Dr. Dirkson
and Dr. Zamora .. .... ...... .... ....... ..... .. ... .... .. ... .. ..... ....... .... ....... ... ... .. ..... ... .. ..... ........ .......... 6
SUB-ISSUE N O. 2 Whether Appellant presented a scintilla of evidence as to Appellee being
responsible under Respondeat Superior. .. .... ........................ .... ........ .. ........ .. .... .9
111
A The Trial Court did abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant presented no
evidence as to an ostensible agency between Hospital and Dr. Dirkson and Dr.
Zamora .......................................................................................................................... 9
III. ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Granting Appellee's
Objection to Appellant's Summary Judgment Evidence ................................. 11
SUB-ISSUE NO . 1 Whether Appellant presented competent summary judgment evidence .... .. .. 11
A The Trial Court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Rushing's Deposition .. ... .. 11
CON CLUSION ................................................ ... .. ....... ... ... ...... .......... ................................................ 12
PRAYER .......... ... .. .. .. ....... ................... .......... ........ .. ............................................ ...... ............ ........... .... 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................... 14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................. 15
MAY 14, 2014, ORDER .. .... ................................ ... ...... ...... .. ..... ...... ... .. ... .. ............. .... ....... .Appendix 1
lV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE
Cases
Dangerfield v. Ormsby,
264 S.W.3d 904, 912 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) .................... ....... 7
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623-29 (Tex.2002) ........................................ 12
Garland Cmty. Hasp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541, 545-46 (Tex.2004) ......................... 7, 12
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex.2006) ...................................... 6
Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 689 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.1985) .......................................... 7
Renaissance Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Swan,
343 S.W.3d 571, 583 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2011, no pet.) ............................ 9
Romero v. KPH ConsoL, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 212, 214 (Tex. 2005) ................................... 7
Tenet Health Ltd. v. Zamora,
13 S.W.3d 464, 472 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) ...... 9
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.00 1...................... .............. .................................... 7
v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
This is an appeal of a no-evidence summary judgment in a health care liability
claim. Appellants Bret Johnston, Individually and as the Personal Representative of
The Estate of Karen Johnston, ("JOHNSTON") filed suit against Appellee Christus
Spohn Health System Corporation d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Beeville
("HOSPITAL"). 1 CR 1-2. Factually, Karen Johnston was a patient in the
HOSPTIAL emergency room September 15 and 18, 2009. 1 CR 1. On the first
emergency room visit, Mrs. Johnston was examined by Dr. Kenzer Dirkson. Id. On
a second visit to the emergency room, Mrs. Johnston was examined by Dr. Jose
Zamora. Id. Ultimately, Mrs. Johnston died on September 22, 2009. 1 CR 2.
JOHNSTON asserts a direct liability claim against HOSPITAL that it was
negligent in the hiring, supervision, retention, and control of emergency room
physicians Dirkson and Zamora ("negligent credentialing"). 1 CR 2. Additionally,
JOHNSTON asserts that physicians Dirkson and Zamora were agents, employees, or
servants of HOSPITAL such that HOSPITAL should be held vicariously liable for
these physicians' actions. 1 CR 2.
1
" _ CR _ "refers to the volume and page of the Clerk's Record. "1 CR _"refers to the Original Clerks Record,
"2 CR _"refers to the Supplemental Clerk' s Record, and "3 CR _" refers to the Corrected Second Supplemental
Clerk's Record. "_ RR _ "refers to the volume and page of the transcribed hearing in the Reporter's Record.
1
On March 26, 2014, HOSPITAL filed a no-evidence summary judgment
against JOHNSTON. On April 28, 2014, JOHNSTON filed a timely response to
HOSPITAL'S no-evidence summary judgment. 3 CR 17.
On May 7, 2014, the 36th Judicial District Court granted HOSPITAL'S no-
evidence summary judgment against JOHNSTON. On May 14, 2014, the 36th
Judicial District Court signed the order granting HOSPITAL'S no-evidence
summary judgment against JOHNSTON. 1 CR 128-129. This order also excluded
the deposition of Lige B. Rushing, Jr., M.D., M.S., P.A. 1 CR 128.
On May 8, 2014, JOHNSTON filed their motion for reconsideration. 1 CR
77-116. On June 12, 2014, the 36th Judicial District Court held a telephonic hearing
on JOHNSTON'S motion for reconsideration. 1 RR 1. On July 16, 2014, the 36th
Judicial District Court denied JOHNSTON'S motion for reconsideration. 1 CR
126-27.
On July 11, 2014, JOHNSTON timely perfected this appeal. 1 CR 115-17.
On November 24, 2014, JOHNSTON filed their First Amended Notice of Appeal
clarifying the cause number after HOSPITAL'S Motion for Severance was signed on
July 21, 2014. 2 CR 1-3, 1 CR 121.
2
ISSUES PRESENTED
Did the trial court err in granting Christus Spohn Health System
Corporation d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Beeville's No-Evidence Motion for
Summary Judgment?
Did the trial court err in concluding that Bret Johnston, Individually
and as the Personal Representative of The Estate of Karen Johnston,
presented no evidence in response to the no-evidence summary
judgment?
Did the trial court err 1n excluding the deposition of Lige B.
Rushing, Jr., M.D., M.S., P.A.?
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. Mrs. Johnston is Treated by Hospital Emergency Room
On September 15, 2009, Karen Johnston, an immune~suppressed patient,
presented herself to Christus Spohn Health System Corporation d/b/a Christus
Spohn Hospital Beeville's ("HOSPITAL") emergency room and was examined by
Defendant Dr. Kenzer Dirkson. 1 CR 1. Mrs. Johnston exhibited signs of a
developing infection, but no chest x~ray or blood count was ordered. Id.
On September 18, 2009, Mrs. Johnston presented herself again to
HOSPITAL'S emergency room and was examined by Defendant Dr. Jose Zamora.
Id. Mrs. Johnston again exhibited signs of a developing infection, confirmed by the
chest x~ray and blood count. 3 CR 6. Yet, Defendant Zamora failed to admit Mrs.
Johnston. 3 CR 6. Mrs. Johnston died on September 22, 2009, of bacterial
pneumonia. 3 CR 7.
II. Johnston File a Health Care Liability Claim against Hospital
Appellants Bret Johnston, Individually and as the Personal Representative of
The Estate of Karen Johnston, ("JOHNSTON") filed this suit on September 19,
2011, alleging negligence against HOSPITAL through respondeat superior that
HOSPITAL is liable for the actions of Defendants Dirkson and Zamora and
negligent hiring, supervision, retention and control of Defendants Dirkson and
4
Zamora. 1 CR 2. Additionally, JOHNSTON asserts that physicians Dirkson and
Zamora were agents, employees, or servants of HOSPITAL such that HOSPITAL
should be held vicariously liable for these physicians' actions. Id.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The trial court's May 14, 2014, order granting H OS PITAL' s no-evidence
summary judgment should be reversed. JOHNSTON presented evidence of
negligent credentialing. There is no dispute that evidence was presented of
extremely low care provided by two (2) emergency room doctors on two (2)
difference occasions. Both doctors completely misdiagnosed Karen Johnston despite
clear indicators of pneumonia. Furthermore, it is undisputed that one (1) doctor,
Dr. Jose Zamora, had been previously involved in numerous lawsuits involving
patient care.
JOHNSTON also presented evidence that HOSPITAL is responsible under
respondeat superior. Based on the testimony and belief of JOHNSTON, there is a
question of fact as to whether the emergency room doctors could be considered
agents of HOSPITAL
The trial court also excluded the deposition of Lige B. Rushing, Jr., M.D.,
M.S., P.A., despite his testimony being both relevant and reliable.
The trial court's May 14, 2014, order should be reversed.
5
ARGUMENT
I. Standard of Review
The court reviews a no-evidence summary judgment by reviewing the evidence
presented by the motion and response in the light most favorable to the party
against whom the summary judgment was rendered, crediting evidence favorable to
that party if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless
reasonable jurors could not. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582
(Tex. 2006).
II. ISSUE NO. 1 Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Granting
Appellee's No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.
SUB-ISSUE NO. I Whether Appellant presented a scintilla of evidence as to
Appellee's negligent credentialing.
A. The Trial Court abused its discretion in finding that Appellant
presented no evidence as to Appellee acting with malice during the
credentialing of Dr. Dirkson and Dr. Zamora.
An employer is liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention when
proof is presented the employer hired an incompetent or unfit employee whom it
knew or, by the exercise of reasonable care, should have known was incompetent or
unfit, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others. See Dangerfield v.
Ormsby, 264 S.W.3d 904, 912 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
6
A finding of negligent credentialing also requires evidence of the defendant
acting with malice. Romero v. KPH ConsoL. Inc., 166 S.W.3d 212, 214 (Tex. 2005).
Malice is defined as "a specific intent by the defendant to cause substantial injury or
harm to claimant." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.001. Specific intent means
that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or that he believes the
consequences are substantially certain to result from it. Reed Too[ Co. v. Copdin, 689
S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.l985).
Both Doctors' Consistent Misdiagnoses Questions Hospital's Credentialing
Negligent credentialing cannot exist without questioning the health care
rendered to patients. Garbnd Cmty. Hasp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541, 545-46
(Tex.2004). Thus it is necessary to review the level of care provided in a health care
case. Id.On two (2) separate occasions, both Dr. Kenzer Dirkson and Dr. Jose Zamora
failed to properly execute tests indicating Karen Johnston's underlying pneumonia.
Evidence was presented by Appellant through deposition testimony of Lige B.
Rushing, Jr., M.D., M.S., P.A., that since Mrs. Johnston was immunosuppressed Dr.
Dirkson should have performed a chest x~ray and blood count on September 15,
2009. 3 CR 52. No such tests were performed by Dr. Dirkson. Id.7
Furthermore, deposition testimony of Dr.. Rushing was presented by
Appellant that Dr. Zamora improperly interpreted or failed to read the tests
performed on September 18, 2009. 3 CR 45, 47. The radiology report presented
indicates "diffuse predominantly interstitial process bilaterally consistent with
extensive pneumonitis." 3 CR 109. Dr. Zamora testified that he is not familiar with
the term "pneumonitis." 3 CR 140.
Dr. Rushing further testified that Dr. Zamora's decision to not admit Mrs.
Johnston to the hospital ultimately allowed the pneumonia to spread. 3 CR 4 7.
Overall, concern regarding HOSPITAL'S credentialing is raised when two (2)
doctors both misdiagnose an immunosuppressed patient symptomatic for
pneumoma on two (2) different occastons. The range of below standard care
included no simple tests ordered by Dr. Dirkson and a complete misreading of a
clear radiology report by Dr. Zamora.
Dr. Zamora's Admitted History Questions Hospital's Credentialing
In reviewing the credentialing process of a hospital, a claimant may refer to
the treating physician's history of disciplinary issues. See Renaissance Healthcare Sys.,
Inc. v. Swan, 343 S.W.3d 571, 583 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2011, no pet.).
JOHNSTON presented evidence of Dr. Zamora's disciplinary issues prior to
being credentialed for privileges by HOSPITAL Dr. Zamora also testified that prior
8
to being credentialed for privileges by HOSPITAL he had five (5) lawsuits with at
least three (3) resulting in monetary settlement. 3 CR 128,30. Dr. Zamora testified
that these violations of patient care were reported to the National Practitioner Data
Bank. 3 CR 130. Congress established the National Practitioner Data Bank for the
purpose of improving the quality of medical care by encouraging physicians to
identify and discipline other physicians who are incompetent or who engage m
unprofessional behavior. Tenet Health Ltd. v. Zamora, 13 S.W.3d 464, 472 (Tex.
App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.).
HOSPITAL knew or should have known the incidents reported to the
National Practitioner Data Bank. Deposition testimony of Barbara Dake,
HOSPITAL'S Direct or Medical Staff Services, was presented that HOSPITAL runs
the National Practitioner Databank for all physicians applying for credentialing. 3
CR 207.
As a whole, evidence was presented that HOSPITAL knew or should have
known that consequences such as the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of Mrs.
Johnston would happen base on Dr. Zamora's patient care history.
SUB,JSSUE NO.2 Whether Appellant presented a scintilla of evidence as to
Appellee being responsible under Respondeat Superior.
A. The Trial Court did abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant
presented no evidence as to an ostensible agency between Hospital and
Dr. Dirkson and Dr. Zamora.
9
A Plaintiffs claim for a hospital's liability for an independent contractor's
medical malpractice based on ostensible agency must show: 1) Plaintiff had a
reasonable belief that the physician was the agent or employee of the hospital; 2)
Plaintiffs belief was generated by the hospital affirmatively holding out the physician
as its agent or employee or knowingly permitting the physician to hold himself out
as the hospital's agent or employee; and 3) Plaintiff justifiably relied on the
representation of authority. See Baptist Memorial Has . Sys., 969 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Tex.
1998).
Appellant Reasonably Believed Emergency Room Doctors were Agents
Bret Johnston testified that he was under the impression that HOSPITAL'S
emergency room physicians were not independent contractors. Mr. Johnston
testified that he had never read any statement that HOSPITAL physicians were
independent contracts. 3 CR 250. Furthermore, it was reasonable for Mr. Johnston
to assume that physicians that appeared to have the ability to order x~rays and admit
patients were employees or agents of HOSPITAL Thus, reviewing the evidence in
the best light to JOHNSTON, there is a scintilla of evidence that the emergency
room physicians were agents of HOSPITAL
Hospital Exercised Control over Emergency Doctors
10
Doctor Zamora also testified that HOSPITAL had the right to control the
means, methods, and details of his work because HOSPITAL limited his treatment
plan and options by not allowing him to admit patients without approval.
Defendant Zamora testifies that his emergency room credentialing did not include
the ability to admit patients, as he would need another physician to authorize
admittance on behalf of HOSPITAL 3 CR 122. This information was never
disclosed to JOHNSTON, showing a lack of discernable independent contractor
status.
III. ISSUE NO.2 Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Granting
Appellee's Objection to Appellant's Summary Judgment
Evidence.
SUB-ISSUE NO. 1 Whether Appellant presented competent summary judgment
evidence.
A. The Trial Court abused its discretion 1n excluding Dr. Rushing's
Deposition.
The order signed by the trial court excludes the deposition testimony of Lige
B. Rushing, Jr., M.D., M.S., P.A. 1 CR 128. Appellee argued that Dr. Rushing's
testimony is not relevant or reliable. 1 CR 2 7. For an expert's testimony to be
admissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 702, the expert must be qualified, and the
expert's opinion must be relevant to the issues in the case and based upon a reliable
foundation. Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623-29 (Tex.2002).
11
As discussed above, the actual health care given must be reviewed in a
negligent credentialing case. Rose, 156 S.W.3d at 546. Dr. Rushing testifies as to
the extremely low standard of care provided by both Dr. Dirkson and Dr. Zamora. 3
CR 52, 45, 47. The deposition of Dr. Rushing is highly relevant against HOSPITAL
because it specifically outlines the underlying poor health care provided by two (2)
doctors credentialed by HOSPITAL Thus the trial court abused its discretion by
excluding the deposition of Dr. Rushing from JOHNSTON'S response to
HOSPITAL'S no-evidence summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
JOHNSTON presented a scintilla of evidence in response to Appellee's no-
evidence summary judgment on issues of negligent credentialing and respondent
superior. A scintilla of evidence was presented for negligent credentialing through
the admitted previous malpractice of Dr. Zamora, the testimony of Barbara Dake
showing that Appellee reviews such reports, and the astonishingly poor care
provided by two (2) emergency room physicians on two (2) occasions. A scintilla of
evidence was presented for respondeat superior through the testimony of Bret
Johnston and his understanding of the role of emergency room doctors working at
Appellee. Furthermore, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the
deposition of Dr. Rushing from Appellant's summary judgment evidence.
12
PRAYER
For these reasons, Appellants, Bret Johnston, Individually and as the Personal
Representative of The Estate of Karen Johnston, respectfully request that this Court:
(1) reverse the trial court's May 14, 2014, order granting Appellee Christus Spohn
Health System Corporation D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Beeville's no-evidence
summary judgment. Appellants,· Bret Johnston, Individually and as the Personal
Representative of The Estate of Karen Johnston, further respectfully request that this
Court grant Appellants any and all other relief to which they may be entitled.
Signature on Next Page
Respectfully submitted,
LADD & THIGPEN, P.C.
Norman R. Ladd
Texas State Bar No. 24041285
Kevin G. Giddens
Texas State Bar No. 24076877
235 South Broadway, Suite 200
Tyler, Texas 75702
(903) 705-7211
(903) 705-7221 (FAX)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the 19th day of February, 2015, a true and correct
copy of the foregoing, First Amended Brief of Appdlants, was duly served via the
following:
Mr. Richard A. McNitzky D Messenger
HOWELL, SMITH & LEE, PLLC
10001 REUNION PLACE D Facsimile
SUITE 600
(210) 731-6339 D Certified Mail - RRR
(210) 785-2911 (Fax)
D First Class Mail
Counsel for CHRISTUS Spohn
Health System Corporation d/b/a D Via Overnight
CHRISTUS Spohn Hospital Beeville
~ Via E-Service
~
Kevm G. Giddens
14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Appellees, Bret Johnston, Individually and as the Personal Representative of
The Estate of Karen Johnston, state that there are 3,168 words contained in
Appellant's Brief. In determining the word count, counsel for Appellants relies on
the word count stated on the bottom ruler in his Microsoft Word document.
Respectfully submitted,
LADD & THIGPEN, P.C.
Norman R. Ladd
Texas State Bar No. 24041285
Kevin G. Giddens
Texas State Bar No. 24076877
235 South Broadway, Suite 200
Tyler, Texas 75702
(903) 705-7211
(903) 705-7221 (FAX)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
15
MAY 14, 2014, ORDER
Appendix 1
Cause No. 8-ll-1434 - CV- .~.
BRET JOHNSTON and The § !N THE DISTRICT COURT
Estate of KAREN JOHNSTON §
Pla intiffs
§
V. § OF BEE COUNTY, TEXAS
§
JOSE L. ZAMORA, M.D., §
KENZER DIRKSON, M .D., §
CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM §
CORPORATION d/b/a CHRISTUS SPOHN §
HOSPiTAL BEEVILLE and §
BEEVILLE ANGEL CARE AI\~BULANCE §
SERViCE, INC. §
Defendants § 36TH JUDICiAL DISTRICT
. ORDER ON DEFENDANT CJ:IJ3J.~JUS SPOHf'(H;.A.~I.~.. ~.Y.H~M.-~Q.BJ?.PRATION D/B/A CHRISTUS
SPOHN HOSPITAL B~.~.VIllE'S OBJECTIONS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT E\(.~p_;N.``..AN..P.
SUMMARY JUDGMEN"J:
On the i4\;J-- day nLa····"
of .. 2014, came on for consideration
Defendant CHRISTUS Spohn Health System Corporation d/b/a CHRISTUS Spohn Hospital
Beeville's No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, and prior to consideration of the Motion
for Summary Judgment, the Court took under consideration Defendant's Objections to
Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Evidence . The Court, after reviewing said objections to Plaintiffs'
Summary Judgment Evidence, is of the following op!nion:
Ex. A- Ruling by Appellate CotJrt- Defendant's objections are ~OVERRULED;
Ex. B Dr. Rushing's Supplemental Report Defendant's objections are
c.D/OVERRULED;
Ex. C - Deposition Testimony of lige B. Ru:;hing. Jr., M.D. - Defendant's objections are
~/OVERRULED; and
{02S15224 .DOCX / l
128
...,s.:
··· Texas Med ical Board History of D~ fend a nt Z<:~ rn o ra - Defe nd,3nt's objections are
---===:-.....
It is, therefore, ORDERED, that the summary judgment evider.ce to which objections are
susta ined above is excluded f1om consideration in connection with Plaintiffs' Response to
Defendant's No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.
Further, after considering Defendant's No Evidence Motion fer Sumrnary Judgment,
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's No Evidence Motion for Summarv Judgment and
Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Evidence and Reply to Plaintiffs'
Response to i\!o Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment should be ln all t hings GRANTED.
It is, therefore, further ORDERED, that Defendant's No Evidence Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED.
S!GNE D this _ _}£_day of .. ········- ·-··:············ ---- · - - - - ' 2014.
``FILED: ``'-~
...,...,.,,..,.....,~Dayof
at m
Zenaida Sitva
-
o'clock _D._
T
at Be . Texas
``·tv
-u ~29