Harold Gaskill, III, MD and Harold Gaskill, M.D. P.A. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, LLC D/B/A Baptist Health System and D/B/A North Central Baptist Hospital, Baptist System, North Central Baptist Hospital, Graham Reeve, David Siegel, William Waechter, Jaydeep Shah

ACCEPTED
04-14-00153-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
12/26/2014 9:30:36 AM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK

No. 04-14-00153-CV

In the Court of Appeals FILED IN -
4th COURT OF--APPEALS
For the Fourth Judicial DistrictSAN ANTONIO, - ----
--- - TEXAS
San Antonio, Texas - - ---- LE ------
12/26/2014
- ID9:30:36
- - AM
-
---- VO ------
HAROLD GASKILL, III, M.D. AND HAROLD GASKILL, KEITH M.D.--E.
- - HOTTLE P.A
- ----Clerk
Appellants, -

V.
RECEIVED IN
VHS SAN ANTONIO PARTNERS, LLC D/B/A BAPTIST HEALTH
4th COURT OF APPEALS
SYSTEMS AND D/B/A NORTH CENTRAL BAPTIST SAN
HOSPITAL,
ANTONIO, TEXAS
BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, NORTH CENTRAL 12/29/2014
BAPTIST 8:48:00 AM
KEITH E.
HOSPITAL, GRAHAM REEVE, DAVID SIEGEL, WILLIAM WAECHTER HOTTLE
Clerk
AND JAYDEEP SHAH
Appellees

On Appeal from the 285TH District Court, Bexar County,
Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2013-CI-14959

APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, Harold Gaskill, II. M.D. and Harold Gaskill,

M.D. P.A. (Gaskill), Appellant in the above styled and

numbered appeal and files this, its Response to Appellees’

Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for

Reconsideration pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 49 and would

show as follows:

1. Appellees seek an extension of time to file a motion

for reconsideration that itself seems only for delay. The

1
Appellees are represented by a large firm with offices all

over the state and worldwide for that matter. They have had

no less than four attorneys on this case and at least two

that signed off on the pleadings. Last year when it sought

to expedite the hearing at the trial, the

Appellees/Defendants assembled voluminous pleadings, tried

to set hearings and performed an entire array of work

between December 31, 2013 and January 2, 2014. The

holidays and other alleged matters did not pose an

impediment then and they should not now.

2. This case has been thoroughly briefed and argued. That

alone begs the question as to what remains to be

“reconsidered.” Appellee had two weeks when this Court

ruled and apparently made no effort to prepare its motion

for reconsideration. Appellants would point out that

literally everything the Appellees/Defendants have done was

designed to delay. They filed their underlying Motion to

Dismiss as late as possible. After Appellants filed

discovery the Appellees waiting until almost the day it was

due to file a motion to stay. The dilatory nature of their

actions with regard to their own motion to dismiss are now

a matter of record. Appellees have already had an extension

2
in this case when they sought and received an extension in

June for a month to file their brief.

3. This case has been completely and thoroughly presented

at this level of appeal. It was the subject of oral

argument and the Court’s decision reflected a unanimous

opinion. Under Tex. R. App. P. 49.7 this court can deny the

right to even file a motion for rehearing, or at a minimum

shortened the time for doing so. There is no reasonable

basis to extend the time to file a motion for rehearing

under the circumstances of this case.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONISDERED, Appellants prays that

this Court deny the Appellees’ Motion for Extension of Time

to file Motion for Reconsideration.

Respectfully Submitted,

/S/ Mark A. Weitz________
Mark A. Weitz
SB# 21116500
Weitz Morgan PLLC
100 Congress Avenue
Suite 2000
Austin, Texas 78701
512-394-8950
512-852-4446 (facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that on the
26th day of December 2014, I served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing Appellant’s Response to
Appellee’s Motion for Leave on all counsel of record by
electronic service.

/S/ Mark A. Weitz________
Mark A. Weitz

4