The Texas Supreme Court has granted a major corporation’s petition for mandamus in a South Texas in which the plaintiff’s lawyer, operating under letters of protection, manufactured grossly inflated medical bills in a fender-bender case.
In re Space Exploration Technologies Corp. and Lauren Krueger (No. 24-0290; June 27, 2025) arose from a low-impact chain reaction automobile collision near Brownsville. Krueger, a SpaceX employee, rear-ended a Ford pick-up, which pushed the truck into a Toyota Tundra at a 7.5 MPH impact. The Tundra’s driver and three passengers, like Krueger, were in route to SpaceX as employees of a subcontractor. No one requested medical assistance. When the accident was reported to their employer, the employer called a lawyer, instructed the crew to see a doctor, and has the truck towed to a repair shop for an estimate. The doctor cleared the employees to go back to work, but the employer sent them to the lawyer’s office instead. He sent them to a chiropractor and, subsequently, for other medical treatment. Once the subcontract ended, the Tundra driver and two passengers sued Krueger and SpaceX for negligence and vicarious liability seeking more than $3.75 million in damages. Prior to trial, Plaintiffs filed a motion in limine to keep out letters of protection. The trial court also excluded the non-party passenger’s testimony about therapy-plan discussion with the lawyer.
In closing argument, defense counsel characterized the case as a lawyer-driven plan “to manufacture an opportunity to cash in,” particularly once they found out a SpaceX employee was involved. Counsel also stated that the plaintiffs’ lawyer had the vehicle towed away to make the fender-bender look worse than it was and that the lawyer had sent Plaintiffs to the doctor to “create medical evidence.” Plaintiffs’ counsel did not request a curative instruction, although he rebutted defense counsel’s “improper attacks.” The jury came back with a verdict against Krueger for a total of about $125,000. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the court granted on the basis of defense counsel’s “incurable arguments.” Defendants petitioned for mandamus, which the court of appeals denied. They sought mandamus from SCOTX.
In a per curiam opinion, the court granted the petition, holding that “the trial court clearly abused its discretion in ordering a new trial because none of the reasons stated in the amended order [for new trial] withstands scrutiny.” In order “[t]o preserve error as to improper jury argument, the complaining party must timely object, secure a ruling, and request a retraction or curative instruction unless the argument is so egregious as to be incurable” (citations omitted). Noting that incurable argument is “rare,” the Court saw nothing in defense counsel’s argument that was not “grounded in evidence adduced at trial without objection.” Although counsel used terms such as “shakedown,” “lawyer-driven plan,” “manufacture an opportunity to cash in,” and “create medical evidence with … therapy,” such “impassioned and loaded rhetoric” was curable, and the Plaintiffs should have followed the proper procedure, get a ruling on a timely objection, and then ask for a new trial. Instead, Plaintiffs rebutted counsel’s argument and chose to submit the case to the jury. When the jury didn’t come back with a jackpot verdict, only then did Plaintiffs move for new trial.
Additionally, the amended new trial order (could it have been written after the fact by plaintiff’s counsel and given to the judge?) contained erroneous assertions about the record, specifically that certain evidence was erroneously admitted when in fact Plaintiffs didn’t object. The order also claimed that the jury “awarded manifestly low damages.” The Court must have had to stifle its guffaws or restrain its righteous indignation at this point. Why “manifestly low”? In any event, the Court could either compel the trial court needed to redraft the order to “elaborate on the reasoning” or order it to render judgment on the verdict “if the record shows no valid basis for the stated reason.” The mandamus record, the Court added, didn’t indicate that. And, by the way, the jury’s verdict was limited to Krueger, though the new trial order was not. Consequently, the Court instructed the trial court to render the jury’s verdict as to SpaceX.
This nonsense is exactly what SB 30 was designed to prevent. Defense counsel in this case simply stated the facts. This lawsuit was manufactured to get a bunch of cash out of a big company. And, of course, that money would have gone primarily to the plaintiff’s lawyer and the captive providers willing to submit fake bills for fake services. Sad to say, but this problem wouldn’t exist if trial courts did their jobs. SCOTX shouldn’t have to clean up such a sordid mess.
