Valley Baptist Medical Center - Brownsville v. Rosalinda Battles, Gerald Battles, as Surviving Spouse of Rosalinda Battles, Amanda Giselle Battles, as Surviving Child of Rosalinda Battles, and Jeremy Blake Battles, as Surviving Child of Rosalinda Battles ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
13-14-00756-CV
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
3/20/2015 3:57:22 PM
DORIAN RAMIREZ
CLERK
Cause No. 13-14-00756-CV
FILED IN
13th COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
IN THE TEXAS 3/20/2015 3:57:22 PM
THIRTEENTH COURT OF DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
APPEALS Clerk
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
______________________
VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER
Appellant
v.
ROSALINDA BATTLES, GERALD BATTLES, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE
OF ROSALINDA BATTLES, AMANDA GISELLE BATTLES, AS
SURVIVING CHILD OF ROSALINDA BATTLES, AND JEREMY BLAKE,
AS SURVIVING CHILD OF ROSALINDA BATTLES
Appellees
______________________
Appeal from 444TH Judicial District Court
of Cameron County, Texas
for Cause No. 2013-DCL-4983-H
______________________
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEES
______________________
MYLES R. GARZA
ROBERT GARZA
1200 East Harrison
Brownsville, Texas 78520
Telephone: (956) 544-1111
Fax: (956) 544-1108
Attorneys for the Appellees, ROSALINDA BATTLES, et al.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................ iv
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 4
A.
Whether the Appellant preserved the “no report” argument on
appeal by failing to timely present this issue to the Court, and
instead, submitted a proposed order granting the 30-day
extension, agreed to pass the hearing on the merits, and
presented this argument nearly a year after the Court had ruled. ......... 4
B.
Whether the case law cited by Appellant supports Appellees'
contention that Appellant failed to preserve the “no report” at
all argument to the Court...................................................................... 6
C.
Conclusion............................................................................................ 9
PRAYER................................................................................................................. 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 11
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 12
APPENDIX............................................................................................................. 13
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Bushell v. Dean, 803 S.W.2d 711 (Tex.1991)(op. on reh’g) .................................... 4
Fung v. Fischer, 365 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012), disapproved of by
Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2013) ............................ 8
Haskell v. Seven Acres Jewish Senior Care Services, Inc., 363 S.W.3d 754 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) ...................................................... 7
Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91 (Tex.2006)...................................................... 4
Laredo Texas Hosp. Co., L.P. v. Gonzalez, 363 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2012, no pet.) .................................................................................... 7
Otero v. Leon, 319 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, pet. denied) .... 4
San Antonio Extended Med. Care, Inc. v. Vasquez, 358 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2011, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) ............................................................ 8
Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.2011) .................................................. 6
Velandia v. Contreras, 359 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011,
no pet.) ............................................................................................................ 7
Williamson v. New Times, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no
pet.) ................................................................................................................. 4
Rules
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351 ........................................................... 4
Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 ................................................................................................. 4
iii
ISSUES PRESENTED
Issue 1: Whether the Appellant preserved the “no report” argument on appeal
by failing to timely present this issue to the Court, and instead,
submitted a proposed order granting the 30-day extension, agreed to
pass the hearing on the merits, and presented this argument nearly a
year after the Court had ruled.
Issue 2: Whether the case law cited by Appellant supports Appellees’
contention that Appellant failed to preserve the “no report” at all
argument to the Court.
iv
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July, 24, 2013, Appellees sued Appellant alleging Appellant’s nursing
staff negligently caused the death of Rosalinda Battles due to insufficient post-
surgery monitoring. C.R. 7-8, 17-18. On November 21, 2013, Appellees served
the expert report and curium vitae from Nurse Erin K. O’Malley (“O’Malley”) on
Appellant. C.R. 40-48.
On December 4, 2013, Appellant filed its objections to O’Malley’s expert
report. C.R. 35-50. In Appellant’s objections, section III titled “[m]otion to
[d]ismiss or [a]lternatively to [r]equire [p]laintiff [s]erve an [a]mended [r]eport that
[m]eets Chapter 74 [r]equirements” was submitted. C.R. 37-38. Appellants also
submitted a proposed order sustaining their objections and granting the 30-day
extension to cure the deficient report. C.R. 49. Appellees did not file a response to
Appellant’s objections.
On January 8, 2014, the Court set Appellants objections for hearing. App. 1.
Both parties appeared before to the Court to pass the hearing and set a status
hearing a month later. Id. The same day, the Court signed Appellant’s proposed
order granting the 30-day extension. Id., C.R. 51-52.
On February 7, 2014, the Appellees served, via facsimile and certified mail
return receipt requested, Appellant O’Malley’s amended expert report. C.R. 63-66.
Appellant did not object to the amended expert report after the 21-day period on
1
March 12, 2014. C.R. 53-60. The Appellees filed a response to Appellant’s
objection claiming Appellant waived any and all objections. C.R. 67-71.
The Court set a hearing on the amended expert report for April 2, 2014.
App. 1. Both parties appeared and Appellant requested dismissal of the case. R.R.
II, 5:8-7:2. Appellees’ responded that any and all objections to the amended expert
report were waived by failing to object within the 21-day period. R.R. II, 7:3-8:18.
The Court did not rule on Appellant’s second motion to dismiss immediately.
On December 3, 2014, the Court set a second hearing on the matter upon
Appellees’ request. App. 1. Appellant, for the first time, argued O’Malley’s first
expert report was “no report” at all and the case should be dismissed on this basis.
R.R. III, 8-11.
The Court denied Appellant’s second motion to dismiss on December 10,
2014. C.R. 75. This appeal followed contesting the first expert report was “no
report” at all.1
1
Appellant’s Brief does not challenge any issue of the amended report.
2
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This Appellees’ brief questions whether the Appellant preserved the “no
report” at all argument for review. Appellant did not preserve the “no report”
argument for review as the Appellant submitted with it’s first motion to dismiss a
proposed order granting Appellee a 30-day extension, passed the hearing on
Appellee’s first expert report, and presented this argument nearly a year after the
Court had already ruled. Thus, Appellant waived their issue for appellate review.
The cases cited by Appellant further support the need to timely present the
“no report” at all argument to a trial court before ruling on the merits. Unlike the
cases cited, Appellant passed its first motion to dismiss hearing and presented the
issue well after the Court had already ruled. This did not preserve the argument.
Thus, Appellant, again, waived this issue for appellate review.
3
ARGUMENT
On appeal, a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss under section
74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex.2006); Otero v. Leon,
319 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, pet. denied); see TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(b). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts
unreasonably or arbitrarily or without reference to any guiding principles. Otero,
319 S.W.3d at 199.
However, for preservation of a complaint on review, a party must have
presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the
specific grounds for the desired ruling, if they are not apparent from the context of
the request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). A party that fails to do
this has not preserved error and the complaint is waived. Bushell v. Dean, 803
S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex.1991)(op. on reh’g); Williamson v. New Times, Inc., 980
S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
A. Whether the Appellant preserved the “no report” argument on appeal
by failing to timely present this issue to the Court, and instead,
submitted a proposed order granting the 30-day extension, agreed to
pass the hearing on the merits, and presented this argument nearly a
year after the Court had ruled.
Appellant argues the Court abused its discretion because the first expert
report was “no report” at all and the case should have been dismissed on this basis.
4
However, this issue was not preserved and was not presented until nearly a year
later after the Court had already ruled.
Initially, when Appellees filed an expert report, the Appellant timely filed its
objections and motion to dismiss along with a proposed order sustaining their
objections and granting a 30-day extension to cure the deficiencies in the expert
report. C.R. 35-52. Appellant’s own motion requests dismissal or “alternatively”
amend the expert report to meet the Chapter 74 requirements. C.R. 37-38.
Appellees did not file a response to the motion as it suggested to the Court to
sustain Appellant’s objections and grant the 30-day extension. Additionally, there
was no mention of O’Malley’s expert report constituting “no report” at all.
When the Court set the motion for hearing on the merits on January 8, 2014,
the Appellant had an opportunity to present the “no report” at all argument to the
Court. However, both parties appeared and agreed to pass the hearing.2 App. 1.
As a result of the parties’ agreement, a status hearing was set for a little more than
30 days and the Court signed the Appellant’s proposed order on January 8, 2014,
which granted the Appellees a 30-day extension to cure the expert report. App. 1,
C.R. 51-52.
It was not until December 3, 2014 that Appellant presented for the first time,
the “no report” at all argument to the Court. R.R. IV, 8-11. This was nearly a year
2
Although the Court notes both attorneys appearing and agreeing to pass the hearing, a
Reporter’s Record is not available as informed by the Court.
5
after the Court had already ruled on the first expert report.
As a result of the Appellant submitting the proposed order for the 30-day
extension to cure the expert report, agreeing to pass hearing arguments on their
motion, and waiting nearly a year later to present the “no report” at all argument,
Appellant did not timely present the argument before the Court and, thus, did not
preserve this issue for appeal.
B. Whether the case law cited by Appellant supports Appellees’ contention
that Appellant failed to preserve the “no report” at all argument to the
Court.
Next, Appellant claims the Court abused its discretion by citing several
cases where a trial court was obligated to grant their first motion to dismiss based
on the “no report” at all argument. However, in each of the cases cited, the
objecting party timely presented this issue to the trial court before a ruling was
made. This is not the case here.
For example, in Scoresby, a group of Physicians timely objected to a letter
serving as an expert report. Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546, 551
(Tex.2011). The Physicians argued before the trial court that the letter was “so
woefully deficient, it did not even qualify as an expert report under the Act.” Id.
Here, the trial court was aware of the “no report” at all argument before ruling. Id.
Additionally, in Velandia, a Physician first motioned to dismiss a Plaintiff’s
claim on the basis that the expert report was not timely served. Velandia v.
6
Contreras, 359 S.W.3d 674, 675-76 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no
pet.). The Plaintiff responded that the expert report was timely served. Id. at 676.
However, before the trial court’s ruling, the Physician replied that the purported
expert report was “no expert report at all.” Id. The trial court was made aware of
the “no report at all” argument and ruled accordingly. Id.
Also, in Haskell, some Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for a Plaintiff’s
failure to timely serve an expert report. Haskell v. Seven Acres Jewish Senior Care
Services, Inc., 363 S.W.3d 754, 757 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no
pet.). The Defendants were unaware that the Plaintiff had served documents to
them that the Plaintiff contended satisfied a timely expert report. Id. The Plaintiff
asserted the Defendants missed their 21-day deadline to object and waived any and
all objections. Id. Before the trial court’s ruling, the Defendants countered that the
purported documents constituted “no expert report at all” and reargued their
motion to dismiss. Id. Here, the trial court was aware of “no report” at all
argument before ruling for Defendants. Id.
Moreover, in Gonzalez, a group of defendants challenged the sufficiency of
the expert report and moved to dismiss a Plaintiff’s case. Laredo Texas Hosp. Co.,
L.P. v. Gonzalez, 363 S.W.3d 255, 256-57 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no
pet.). The Plaintiff filed a response that the expert report was not deficient and
requested a 30-day extension to cure the deficiency. Id. The trial court denied the
7
Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the extension. Id. Even though
overturned on appeal, the trial court was aware of the Defendants’ arguments. Id.
Likewise, in Vasquez, a Defendant moved to dismiss due to a Plaintiff’s
failure to serve a medical report. San Antonio Extended Med. Care, Inc. v.
Vasquez, 358 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. dism'd w.o.j.).
The Plaintiff moved to strike dismissal, claimed Defendant was not a “health care
provider,” and, even if “health care provider,” Defendant waived objections by not
timely filing objecting. Id. The trial court determined Defendant was not a “health
care provider,” the case was appealed, the appellate court determined Defendant
was a “health care provider,” and the case was remanded. Id. at 687-88. On
remand and before ruling, the Defendant argued Plaintiff’s expert report was “no
report” at all. Id. at 688. While the trial court erroneously ruled in favor of the
Plaintiff, the argument was presented to the court. Id.
Further, in Fung, a Defendant argued before a probate court the “no report”
at all argument. Fung v. Fischer, 365 S.W.3d 507, 517 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012),
disapproved of by Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2013).
Unlike the other co-defendants, the probate court rendered judgment on the merits
of the Defendant’s objections for failure to comply with the statutory requirements.
Id. at 528. Similarly, the probate court was aware of the “no report” at all
argument and preserved the issue for appellate review. Id.
8
In all Appellant’s cases cited, the objecting party timely brought before the
trial courts the “no report” at all argument. The trial court, at minimum,
considered this argument before issuing a ruling. Thus, preserving this issue for
review by the appellate courts.
However, in this appeal, the Appellant did not present the “no report” at all
argument before the Court issued the 30-day extension. Instead, the Appellant
agreed to pass the hearing on the merits and the Court signed Appellant’s proposed
order for granting the extension. Appellant had an opportunity to timely present
this argument before the Court ruled, but did not. Thus, the argument was not
preserved for appeal.
Therefore, from the cases cited where the “no report” at all argument was
properly presented to the trial court before ruling, preserving the argument, and
Appellant untimely presenting the argument after the Court ruled, Appellant did
not preserve the issue for review.
C. Conclusion
As a result of Appellant submitting the proposed order granting the 30-day
extension, passing the hearing on the merits, and presenting the “no report” at all
argument nearly a year after the Court had already ruled, Appellant did not timely
present this objection to the Court and did not preserve this issue for appeal.
Additionally, the case law submitted by Appellant supports that the argument
9
needs to be presented to a trial court before that trial court’s ruling. Appellant did
not present the “no report” at all argument to the Court until a year after the Court
had already made its ruling, thus, waiving the “no report” at all argument to
Appellees’ first expert report.
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons discussed above, Appellees, Rosalinda Battles et
al., pray this Court render judgment in favor of Appellees, and for all other relief to
which Appellees are entitled.
Respectfully Submitted
Law Office of Robert Garza, P.C.
1200 East Harrison
Brownsville, Texas 78520
Telephone: (956) 544-1111
Facsimile: (956) 544-1108
By: /s/ Myles R. Garza
MYLES R. GARZA
Texas Bar No. 24086499
myles@rgarzalaw.com
ROBERT GARZA
Texas Bar No. 07738025
jrobert@rgarzalaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Rosalinda Battles, et al.
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, hereby, certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
instrument was forwarded to the following counsel of record on the 20th day of
March, 2015, via electronic service and electronic mail:
Attorneys of record for Appellant, Valley Baptist Medical Center
Scott T. Clark
Roger W. Hughes
Will Hughes
Adams & Graham, L.L.P.
P.O. Drawer 1429
Harlingen, TX 78551
___/s/ Myles R. Garza______
MYLES R. GARZA
11
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3), the undersigned counsel certifies this
Appellees’ Brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Tex. R. App. P.
9.4(i)(2)(B).
Exclusive of the exempted portions in Tex. R. App. P. 9(i)(1), Appellees’ Brief
contains 2,093 words. Appellees’ Brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced
typeface using:
Software Name and Version: Microsoft Word 2011
In (Typeface Name and Font Size): Times New Roman 14 point for Text;
Times New Roman 12 point for Footnotes.
Law Office of Robert Garza, P.C.
1200 E. Harrison St.
Brownsville, TX 78520
Phone (956) 544-1111
Facsimile: (956) 544-1108
By: /s/ Myles R. Garza
MYLES R. GARZA
Texas Bar No. 24086499
12
APPENDIX
1. Register of Actions for Case No. 2013-DCL-04983 from Cameron County Public Access
Website. See Case No. 2013-DCL-04983, CAMERON COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS,
http://co.cameron.tx.us/publicaccess (follow “Civil, Family & Probate Case Records”
hyperlink; then search “Case Number” for “2013dcl4983”; then follow “2013-DCL-
04983” hyperlink).
13
CAUSE NO. 13-14-00756-CV
APPENDIX 1
TO APPELLEE’S BRIEF
3/16/15, 12:01 PM
Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu New Civil Search Refine Search Back Location : All Cameron County Courts
REGISTER OF ACTIONS
CASE NO. 2013-DCL-04983
ROSALINDA BATTLES,GERALD BATTLES, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF § Case Type: Medical Malpractice
ROSALINDA BATTLES,AMANDA GISELLE BATTLES, AS SURVIVING § Date Filed: 07/24/2013
CHILD OF ROSALINDA BATTLES, JERAMY BLAKE BATTLES, AS § Location: 444th District Court
SURVIVING CHILD OF ROSALINDA BATTLES vs. VALLEY BAPTIST §
MEDICAL CENTER §
PARTY INFORMATION
Attorneys
Defendant VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER WILBERT (WILL) HUGHES
HARLINGEN, TX 78550 Retained
956-428-7495(W)
Plaintiff BATTLES, AMANDA
Plaintiff BATTLES, GERALD
Plaintiff BATTLES, JERAMY BLAKE
Plaintiff BATTLES, ROSALINDA ROBERT GARZA
Retained
956-544-1111(W)
EVENTS & ORDERS OF THE COURT
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
07/24/2013 Original Petition (OCA)
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION
07/24/2013 Jury Fee Paid (OCA)
07/25/2013 Citation Issued
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION
07/25/2013 Citation
VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER Served 08/06/2013
Returned 08/06/2013
07/25/2013 Clerks Journal
CITATION PLACED IN PICK UP BOX ATTORNEYS OFFICE NOTIFIED. M.AMIEVA
08/30/2013 Jury Demand
Valley Baptist Medical Center - Brownsville's Jury Demand
08/30/2013 Original Answer
Valley Baptist Medical Center's Original Answer
09/04/2013 Certificate of Written Discovery
Valley Baptist Medical Center - Brownsville's Certificate of Written Discovery
09/05/2013 Certificate
Certificate of Discovery
10/03/2013 Certificate of Written Discovery
Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville Certificate of Written Discovery
12/04/2013 Document Filed
Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Objection to Plaintiff's Expert Report of Erin k. O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,INC-CSp and
Motion to Dismiss
01/08/2014 Motion Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David)
ON DEF OBJECTIONS 2 PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT REPORT OF ERIN K. O'MALLEY, RN, BSN, MHSA, INC-CSP & MTN 2 DISMISS
01/08/2014 Journal Entry
Both attys appeared agreed to pass and set for status 2/12/14 DSANCHEZ/pg
01/08/2014 Order (Judicial Officer: Sanchez, David )
Order Granting Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Centrer-Brownsville's Objections to Plaintiffs' Expert Report of Erin K.
O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,INC+CSP and Granting Plaintiffs a CPRC $74.351(c) Extension to Furnish Compliant Report
02/12/2014 Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David)
02/12/2014 Journal Entry
Hearing passed by Atty R Garza's office they did nto have it on their calendar will submit order resetting 3/19/14 DSANCHEZ/pg
03/12/2014 Document Filed
Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Deficient Expert Report of Erin K
O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,INC-CSp and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
03/18/2014 Rule 11 Agreement
Rule 11 Agreement
03/19/2014 CANCELED Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David)
Other
03/25/2014 Document Filed
http://co.cameron.tx.us/publicaccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2447373 Page 1 of 3
3/16/15, 12:01 PM
03/25/2014 Document Filed
Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Objection to Plaintiff's Second Deficient Expert Report of Erin K.
O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,Inc-CSP and Motion to Dismiss
04/02/2014 Motion Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David)
ON DEF VBMCB OBJECTIONS 2 PLAINTIFF'S 2ND DEFICIENT EXPERT REPORT OF ERIN KO'MALLEY & MTN 2 DISMISS
04/02/2014 Journal Entry
Both Atty's appeared, arguments made. DSANCHEZ/mrl
04/02/2014 Exhibits
Exhibits 1 &
10/31/2014 Motion
Plaintiff's Motion for Status Hearing on Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center Objections
11/13/2014 Order Setting Hearing (Judicial Officer: Sanchez, David )
Order Setting Hearing
12/03/2014 Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Sanchez, David)
12/10/2014 Order (Judicial Officer: Sanchez, David )
Order on Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Objections to Plaintiff's Second Deficient Expert Report of Erin K.
O'Malley,RN,BSN,MHSA,Inc-CSP and Motion to Dismiss
12/29/2014 Notice of Appeal
Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Notice of Appeal
12/30/2014 Appeals Memorandum
Appeals Memorandum
12/30/2014 Appeals Schedule
Appeals Schedule
01/06/2015 Correspondence
Correspondence from 13th Court of Appeals for Attorney
01/07/2015 No Fee Documents(Civil)
Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Designation of Clerk's Record
01/07/2015 No Fee Documents(Civil)
Defendant Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville's Designation of Reporter's Record
01/29/2015 Clerks Record Estimate
Clerks Record Estimate Emailed to willhughes@adamsgraham.com Paid
02/03/2015 No Fee Documents(Civil)
Attorney Vacation Letter
02/06/2015 Clerk's Record
Clerks Record Volume 01
02/06/2015 Clerks Journal
Clerk's Record Volume 001 electronically submitted to the 13th Court of Appeals and Emailed to willhughes@adamsgraham.com
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Defendant VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER
Total Financial Assessment 235.00
Total Payments and Credits 235.00
Balance Due as of 03/16/2015 0.00
09/03/2013 Transaction Assessment 32.00
09/03/2013 Payment Receipt # 2013-29020 hughes, will (32.00)
09/03/2013 Transaction Assessment 2.00
09/03/2013 Payment Receipt # 2013-29021 hughes, will (2.00)
03/12/2014 Transaction Assessment 2.00
03/14/2014 Payment Receipt # 2014-09071 HUGHES, WILBERT (WILL) (2.00)
12/29/2014 Transaction Assessment 67.00
12/29/2014 E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # 2014-52014 VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER (67.00)
01/07/2015 Transaction Assessment 2.00
01/07/2015 E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # 2015-00882 VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER (2.00)
02/03/2015 Transaction Assessment 2.00
02/03/2015 E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # 2015-05567 VALLEY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER (2.00)
02/04/2015 Transaction Assessment 128.00
02/04/2015 Payment Receipt # 2015-05643 ADAMS & GRAHAM (128.00)
Plaintiff BATTLES, ROSALINDA
Total Financial Assessment 287.00
Total Payments and Credits 287.00
Balance Due as of 03/16/2015 0.00
07/25/2013 Transaction Assessment 247.00
07/25/2013 Transaction Assessment 8.00
07/25/2013 Transaction Assessment 30.00
07/25/2013 Payment Receipt # 2013-24601 GARZA, ROBERT (285.00)
10/31/2014 Transaction Assessment 2.00
10/31/2014 E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # 2014-43183 BATTLES, ROSALINDA (2.00)
http://co.cameron.tx.us/publicaccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2447373 Page 2 of 3
3/16/15, 12:01 PM
http://co.cameron.tx.us/publicaccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2447373 Page 3 of 3