In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-08-00143-CV
______________________________
IN RE:
GLADEWATER HEALTHCARE CENTER,
IN ITS ASSUMED OR COMMON NAME, ET AL.
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators, corporate healthcare entities operating nursing homes in Upshur County, have filed
in this Court petitions for writs of mandamus relating to four long-pending healthcare liability
actions. In this cause, a companion case to In re Gladewater Healthcare Center, cause number 06-
08-00141-CV, Relators challenge the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss trial court cause
number 605-03 styled Grabbs v. Gladewater Healthcare Center. The cause was originally filed in
August 2003, as were the other three pending cases.
We note that, in this cause, we have nothing in the record that would suggest the trial court
had set a date for trial. This fact could distinguish the instant case from the cause examined in our
cause number 06-08-00141-CV, the opinion issued this same day. We believe such a distinction
could be relevant under other circumstances to the application of the Texas Supreme Court's
discussion of reasons why review of these claims by mandamus would be unavailable:
For many of the same reasons, we acknowledge that mandamus review should not
be granted in every pre-2003 case. The statute was intended to preclude extensive
discovery and prolonged litigation in frivolous cases; review by mandamus may
actually defeat those goals if discovery is complete, trial is imminent, or the existing
expert reports show a case is not frivolous. But if the legislative purposes behind the
statute are still attainable through mandamus review, Texas courts should not
frustrate those purposes by a too-strict application of our own procedural devices.
In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 05-0892, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 759, at *19 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)
(orig. proceeding).
2
Here, however, considering the other factors mentioned in McAllen Medical Center (the
length the case has been pending, the detailed nature of the expert reports, and the time for
discovery), we believe that the outcome in the instant case remains the same. Further, the trial
court's denial of the motion to dismiss this case is not a clear abuse of discretion for the same reasons
as discussed in In re Gladewater Healthcare Center, cause number 06-08-00141-CV. That is, the
expert reports filed in this case are also sufficiently detailed such that the trial court was not required
to dismiss the cause of action. That said, the petition for writ of mandamus in this cause is, likewise,
denied.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: February 24, 2009
Date Decided: February 25, 2009
3