The Texas Supreme Court has issued a conditional writ of mandamus ordering a trial court to grant a defense motion to compel a medical examination under Rule 204.1, TRCP.
In re The Sherwin-Williams Company and Roberto Hernandez (No. 22-0559) arose from a commercial vehicle accident. Plaintiff allegedly sustained spinal injuries for which he sought damages for medical expenses, physical pain, past and future lost earnings, and mental anguish. He designated two treating physicians who examined him and performed spinal surgery, as well as experts to opine on his medical improvement and reduction in wage-earning capacity. Defendants designated a spinal surgeon as their expert and moved to compel a medical examination of plaintiff. They argued, in accordance with Rule 204.1, that good cause for ordering the examination existed because: “(1) the examination is relevant to the issue and controversy and is likely to lead to relevant evidence, (2) there is a ‘reasonable nexus between the examination and the condition in controversy,’ and (3) the desired information ‘cannot be obtained by less intrusive means.’” Plaintiff objected on the basis that the defense expert could obtain the “desired information” by examining the medical records. The trial court agreed and denied the motion to compel. The San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with SCOTX.
SCOTX held that the trial court abused its discretion for four reasons: (1) plaintiff intended to prove causation and damages through expert testimony from physicians who examined plaintiff; (2) the results of the exam requested by defendants “went to the heart of its defense strategy”; and (3) the defense expert “explained in an affidavit why a treating doctor was in a better position than a records-review doctor to examine and opine on the particular injuries alleged”; and (4) “requiring the defendant’s expert to testify at trial without the exam would place him at a distinct disadvantage because it would allow the plaintiff to call into question his credibility in front of the jury” (citations omitted). Specifically, the defense expert stated in his affidavit that the type of spinal injury alleged by plaintiff demanded that a treating physician conduct subjective tests and personal observation of the patient, which cannot be derived from records review alone. Moreover, without the examination, plaintiff could move to strike the defense expert’s affidavit or call his credibility into question before the jury. Finally, defendants lacked an adequate remedy on appeal because denying the motion severely compromised the defendants’ ability to present a viable defense.
We should all be very appreciative that we have a supreme court that can decide a massively important personal jurisdiction case and a seemingly small discovery dispute in personal injury case on the same day with an equal commitment to due process of law.
