The Texas Supreme Court has granted an emergency stay in a lawsuit brought by a physician against Children’s Medical Center of Dallas arising from the hospital’s and UT Southwestern Medical Center’s decision to stop providing care for new pediatric patients with gender dysphoria in late 2021.
The underlying suit in In re Children’s Medical Center of Dallas (No. 23-0276) asserts claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and tort damages. Plaintiff physician, a pediatric endocrinologist employed by UT Southwestern, alleges that Children’s and UTSW, alleges, among other theories, that defendants’ decision to terminate care for new patients constitutes an unlawful restriction on her independent medical judgment and an illegal restraint of trade, as well as a violation of laws prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine. She alleges further that defendants’ conduct constitutes gender identity and sex discrimination in violation of federal and state law and requires plaintiff to engage in unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff later amended her petition to add conspiracy, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (It should be noted that the physician has closed down her practice and relocated to California.)
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s tort claims under Rule 91a. The trial court denied the motion and awarded plaintiff her attorney’s fees. Defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Dallas Court of Appeals and an emergency motion seeking a stay of trial, which is slated to begin later in October. When the court of appeals did not take immediate action, defendants sought mandamus relief from SCOTX, which denied the petition on July 31. The following day defendants renewed its request for relief in the court of appeals, which on August 31 it denied. Now in possession of a decision on the merits from the court of appeals, defendants once again turned to SCOTX, which granted a stay on September 27, leaving the petition for mandamus pending.
While this case arose almost two years prior to the enactment of SB 14, it raises some interesting issues for SCOTX on the Rule 91a’s application to plaintiff’s tort, corporate practice of medicine, and discrimination claims. How SCOTX approaches these issues in a pre-SB 14 context may give us some idea of what may be in the offing for the inevitable SB 14 challenges to come.
