FILED
15-0149
3/31/2015 8:50:32 AM
tex-4703090
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
No. 15-0149
In the Supreme Court of Texas
Good Shepherd Medical Center,
Petitioner
vs.
Carolyn Watson,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of the Sixth District Court of Appeals at Texarkana,
Hon. Chief Justice Morriss and Justices Moseley and Carter, Presiding
Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time
Good Shepherd Medical Center moves for a second 30-day extension of the
deadline to file a Petition for Review in this matter so that Good Shepherd would
need to file any Petition on or before May 1, 2015. Watson’s counsel indicated that
he is not opposed to the requested extension.
1
1. Good Shepherd Medical Center was the Appellee in Carolyn Watson v.
Good Shepherd Medical Center, No. 06-14-00025-CV (Tex.App.—Texarkana January 15,
2015). On January 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion and judgment,
reversing and remanding the case back to the trial court. Good Shepherd did not seek
rehearing in the Court of Appeals. A Petition for Review is 45 days later, or by March
2, 2015 in this case. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(a). With appropriate motion, the Court
can extend the deadline. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f). This Court previously granted a 30-
day extension, so that the Petition is currently due on April 1, 2015.
2. Good Shepherd seeks a second 30-day extension of the deadline for
filing a Petition for Review so that the new deadline would be May 1, 2015.
3. Good cause exists for allowing Petitioner additional time to file its
Petition for Review:
a. This primary issue in this appeal is whether a slip and fall by a
non-patient constitutes a health care liability claim – a subject under
consideration by this Court in several cases, most notably Ross v. St. Luke’s
Episcopal Hospital, No. 13-0439. This Court heard oral argument in that case in
November 2014. If Court issues a decision in that matter, it would obviously
affect the manner in which Good Shepherd drafts the Petition in this case. If
this Court affirms the result in Ross, that result sets this case up for a Petition
that would seek a per curiam reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision in this
case. Alternative, if this Court were to reverse, that result would require the
2
Petition in this case to emphasize the differences between the two contexts that
connect this case to the provision of health care. During the first requested
extension, this Court has not issued an opinion in the Ross case.
b. Additionally, the wife of counsel for Good Shepherd suffered
several medical issues that have prevented counsel from being able to complete
the Petition during the time provide. On March 10, 2015, counsel’s wife went
to the emergency room with a complaint of chest pain, resulting in a
hospitalization and full cardiac work-up. While the cardiac work-up was
(thankfully) negative, additional testing revealed problems with her gallbladder,
which is now scheduled to be removed on March 30, 2015. The initial event,
subsequent testing, and surgery have resulted in counsel being out of the office
and not able to complete the Petition within the current deadline.
c. Moreover, since the Court of Appeals’ opinion, other work has
interfered with undersigned counsel’s ability to complete the Petition for
Review in this case in a timely manner. Petitioner’s counsel has been involved
in the following:
Providing trial support (including pretrial strategy regarding admissibility
of evidence, attending pretrial hearings, monitoring trial to preserve
error, preparing/consulting on the jury charge, and arguing the jury
charge) in four cases, three of which went to trial:
o McCowan v. North Dallas Pediatric Associates, No. CC-12-07643-B, in
3
County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas (trial began on
January 26, 2015);
o Mangual v. Wieser, CC-11-06685-E, in County Court at Law No. 5,
Dallas County, Texas (trial scheduled for January 26, 2015 and
continued after all pretrial deadlines);
o Avalos v. Matthews, DC-11-15049, in the 68th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas (trial began on February 10, 2015);
o Hernandez v. Pancorvo, DC-11-10629, in the 134th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas (trial began on March 2, 2015 – and
will begin its fifth week of trial on March 30, 2015).
Preparing for and presenting oral argument in the following cases:
o Key v. Richards, No. 03-14-00116-CV, in the Third District Court
of Appeals at Austin, Texas (argument occurred on February 11,
2015);
o Estate of Henson v. Bolin, No. 14-10126, in the United States
District Court for the Fifth Circuit (argument occurred on March
4, 2015); and
o Mitchell v. Saytu, No. 05-14-00479-CV, in the Fifth District Court
of Appeals at Dallas, Texas (argument scheduled to occur on
March 31, 2015).
4
Preparing for and presenting a defendant for deposition in a wrongful-
death and survival action, Johnson v. Jackson, DC-14-08663, pending in the
134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas;
Preparing for and attending depositions in Longview, Texas of a
physician and two nurses in an alleged failure to diagnose cancer case,
Gibson v. Bryk, No. 14-0568, pending in the 71st Judicial District Court,
Harrison County, Texas;
Attending meetings with potential expert witnesses;
Preparing for and attending a summary judgment hearing in Miller v.
Whitaker, No. CC-13-00088-B, pending in County Court at Law No. 2,
Dallas County, Texas;
Preparing for and attending a summary judgment hearing in Hoyt v. Kim,
No. CC-11-01461-C, pending in County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas
County, Texas; and
Preparing Appellees’ Brief in Flores v. Chasco, No. 05-14-00531-CV,
pending in the Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas, Texas.
d. A reasonable cause justifying an extension of time in this context
has been described as “any plausible statement of circumstances indicating the
failure to file within the [briefing] period was not deliberate or intentional.”
Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003). The nature of the legal
5
question presented and counsel’s other commitments demonstrate that any
failure to complete the Petition for Review on time is not or will not be
deliberate or intentional.
4. This Motion is not sought solely for delay but so that justice may be
served.
Petitioner Good Shepherd Medical Center, therefore, prays that this Court
extend the deadline for filing a Petition for Review for 30 days so that it may timely
file a Petition on or before May 1, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
David M. Walsh IV
State Bar No. 00791874
dmwalsh@chambleeryan.com
Chamblee, Ryan, Kershaw & Anderson, P.C.
2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1157
Dallas, Texas 75207
(214) 905-2003 – Telephone
(214) 905-1213 – Facsimile
Counsel for Petitioner
Good Shepherd Medical Center
6
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that I conferred with Darren Grant, counsel for Respondent Carolyn
Watson, about this request for an extension of the deadline to file a Petition for
Review in the Supreme Court of Texas, and Mr. Grant indicated that he “[was]
unopposed” to “an extension” of the deadline.
____________________________________
David M. Walsh IV
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this document was served on counsel for Respondent
Carolyn Watson by email and facsimile on March 31, 2015:
Brandon Beck
Starr Schoenbrun Comte McGuire PLLC
110 N. College Avenue, Suite 1700
Tyler, Texas 75702
brandonebeck@gmail.com
(903) 534-0511
Darren Grant
Grant & Flanery, P.C.
216 W. Erwin, Suite 200
Tyler, Texas 75702
darren@gftexas.com
(903) 596-8086
__________________________________
David M. Walsh IV
7