Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic, P.A., a Medicaid provider, was entitled to a contested-case hearing on the merits of the State’s claim to recoup alleged overpayments.Texas law directs the Inspector General to recover from a Medicaid provider any “overpayment” identified in a fraud or abuse investigation. Here, Shamrock received a “Notice of Payment Hold." Shamrock requested an expedited administrative hearing. Shamrock later received a “Final Notice of Overpayment.” The parties agreed to consolidate the payment hold and overpayment issues into one proceeding. The administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the overpayment and payment-hold cases due to Shamrock’s failure to submit a timely written request for an appeal. Shamrock filed suit. The trial court granted the Inspector General’s plea to the jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds. Shamrock appealed, arguing that the ALJ and Inspector General had a ministerial duty to abide by a Rule 11 agreement created by the parties’ communications and the Inspector General’s written representations. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the parties agreed that Shamrock would defend itself against the overpayment claims in a contested-cse hearing; (2) the ALJ failed to perform the purely ministerial act of enforcing the Rule 11 agreement; and (3) therefore, the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity applied to Shamrock’s suit. View "Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic, P.A. v. Texas Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

In this discovery dispute, the Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and ordered the trial court to vacate its order directing a relator to turn over his computer and other electronic devices for forensic examination.Marion Shipman partnered with Mark and Jamie Shelton in various real estate ventures. After their business dealings ceased, a bank sued the Sheltons. Jamie brought a third-party action against Shipman, alleging fraud and breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. Jamie sought to discover a variety of records regarding Shipman’s business dealings with the Sheltons. Dissatisfied with Shipman’s production, Jamie filed a motion to compel and then a second motion to compel, the motion at issue in this case. In his motion, Jamie asserted that Shipman may have destroyed material evidence in this case and asked that the trial court tcompel Shipman to turn over his computer for forensic inspection. The trial court ordered Shipman to product his computer and all “media” for forensic examination. The Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Shipman to produce for forensic examination all his electronically stored files of every kind, whether business or personal, and regardless of whether they were related to the issues in the lawsuit, for seventeen years. View "In re Marion Shipman" on Justia Law

In this discovery dispute, the Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and ordered the trial court to vacate its order directing a relator to turn over his computer and other electronic devices for forensic examination.Marion Shipman partnered with Mark and Jamie Shelton in various real estate ventures. After their business dealings ceased, a bank sued the Sheltons. Jamie brought a third-party action against Shipman, alleging fraud and breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. Jamie sought to discover a variety of records regarding Shipman’s business dealings with the Sheltons. Dissatisfied with Shipman’s production, Jamie filed a motion to compel and then a second motion to compel, the motion at issue in this case. In his motion, Jamie asserted that Shipman may have destroyed material evidence in this case and asked that the trial court tcompel Shipman to turn over his computer for forensic inspection. The trial court ordered Shipman to product his computer and all “media” for forensic examination. The Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Shipman to produce for forensic examination all his electronically stored files of every kind, whether business or personal, and regardless of whether they were related to the issues in the lawsuit, for seventeen years. View "In re Marion Shipman" on Justia Law

A client’s communications with his registered patent agent, made to facilitate the agent’s provision of authorized legal services to the client, are privileged under Tex. R. Evid. 503.Andrew Silver brought a breach of contract action against Tabletop Media, LLC, alleging that it failed to pay him for his patent. During discovery, Tabletop sought production of emails between Silver and Raffi Gostanian, the patent agent who represented Silver before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Silver refused to produce the emails, asserting that they were covered by the lawyer-client privilege. The trial court granted Tabletop’s motion to compel production. Thereafter, Silver sought mandamus relief. The court of appeals denied relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that, under certain circumstances, the existing lawyer-client privilege extends to communications between a registered patent agent and the agent’s client. View "In re Andrew Silver" on Justia Law

A client’s communications with his registered patent agent, made to facilitate the agent’s provision of authorized legal services to the client, are privileged under Tex. R. Evid. 503.Andrew Silver brought a breach of contract action against Tabletop Media, LLC, alleging that it failed to pay him for his patent. During discovery, Tabletop sought production of emails between Silver and Raffi Gostanian, the patent agent who represented Silver before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Silver refused to produce the emails, asserting that they were covered by the lawyer-client privilege. The trial court granted Tabletop’s motion to compel production. Thereafter, Silver sought mandamus relief. The court of appeals denied relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that, under certain circumstances, the existing lawyer-client privilege extends to communications between a registered patent agent and the agent’s client. View "In re Andrew Silver" on Justia Law

The limitations on mental anguish damages do not require a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and defendant before mental anguish damages can be recovered for mishandling a corpse.Cody Nelson sued SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc. for negligence in proceeding with the cremation of his mother’s body without his authorization, claiming mental anguish damages for having been denied the opportunity to pay his last respects to his mother. The siblings of Nelson’s mother signed an authorization for SCI to arrange an expedited cremation during Nelson’s absence. The trial court rendered judgment for SCI, concluding that because SCI did not contract with Nelson, it could not be liable to him for mental anguish damages. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that SCI and Nelson had a special relationships without being in contractual privity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Texas common law requires a special relationship, and not necessarily a contractual one, as the basis for mental anguish damages when the defendant had negligently mishandled a corpse. View "SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc. v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Both Bernard Morello and White Lion Holdings, LLC could be assessed civil penalties under the Texas Water Code for actions that Morello performed as an employee of White Lion.The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that because the State failed to establish that Morello could be held individually liable as a matter of law for the alleged violations, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the State. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated that of the trial court, holding (1) Morello was a “person” subject to penalties under the Water Code individually; (2) the court of appeals had jurisdiction over Morello’s appeal; and (3) the penalties assessed against Morello were not unconstitutional. View "State v. Morello" on Justia Law

Both Bernard Morello and White Lion Holdings, LLC could be assessed civil penalties under the Texas Water Code for actions that Morello performed as an employee of White Lion.The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that because the State failed to establish that Morello could be held individually liable as a matter of law for the alleged violations, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the State. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated that of the trial court, holding (1) Morello was a “person” subject to penalties under the Water Code individually; (2) the court of appeals had jurisdiction over Morello’s appeal; and (3) the penalties assessed against Morello were not unconstitutional. View "State v. Morello" on Justia Law

In this, the second arising out of a 2014 judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals concluding that it lacked jurisdiction, holding that the order was a final appealable order.In the first appeal, Appellant posted a supersedes bond. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the trial court ordered Appellant and his surety to pay the full amount of the bond to Appellees. Appellant appealed from that order. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that the payment order was not a final order, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the order was a final appealable order. View "McFadin v. Broadway Coffee House, LLC" on Justia Law

The trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Plaintiff’s expert report did not represent a good-faith effort to meet the requirements of the Texas Medical Liability Act and in dismissing Plaintiff’s health care liability claims.Plaintiff sued Defendants, a certified registered nurse anesthetist and his employer, asserting medical malpractice claims relating to the nurse’s administration before cataract surgery. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff’s expert report was deficient with respect to the elements of standards of care, breach of standards of care, and causation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the report satisfied the good faith effort the Act requires. View "Baty v. Futrell" on Justia Law