IN RE AUTOZONE PARTS, INC. AND AARON ALLEN, Relators
Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.
Parts, Inc. and Aaron Allen, seek mandamus relief from the
trial court's order denying their motion to compel the
medical examination of Raul Maturey in the underlying
personal injury suit filed by Maturey against
them.AutoZone and Allen contend that (1) they
satisfied the "good cause" requirement for the
medical exam after Maturey designated medical doctors as
witnesses who might testify regarding his physical injuries
and his need for future medical care; and (2) they lack an
adequate remedy on appeal. We conditionally grant the
case arose out of a car accident between vehicles operated by
Maturey and Allen. At the time of the accident, Allen was
driving a vehicle in the course and scope of his employment
with AutoZone. Maturey sued AutoZone and Allen for
negligence, alleging injuries to his back and neck. Maturey
designated multiple medical providers as expert witnesses.
and Allen moved that Maturey be required to submit to a
medical examination by one of their experts, an orthopedic
surgeon. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 204. Maturey responded
that AutoZone and Allen had failed to show "good
cause" for the examination. The trial court denied the
their petition, AutoZone and Allen contend that the trial
court's order denying their medical exam motion was an
abuse of discretion because they met the requirements for a
medical examination under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
Standard of Review
is available only when the relator can show both that (1) the
trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty
imposed by law, and (2) there is no adequate remedy by way of
appeal. In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317
(Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding); see also In re H & R Block, 159
S.W.3d 127, 132 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004, orig.
proceeding). In determining whether an appeal is adequate, we
consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of
mandamus review. In re BP Prods. N. Am.,
Inc., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
204.1 governs whether a movant may obtain a physical or
mental examination of another party. Tex.R.Civ.P. 204.1(a);
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 303
(Tex. 2016). The trial court may grant a Rule 204.1 motion if
the movant shows that (1) "good cause" exists and
(2) the physical condition is "in controversy."
Tex.R.Civ.P. 204.1(c). "Accordingly, 'good
cause' must be shown for issuance of the exams, which may
be shown when the mental or physical condition of the party
is 'in controversy, ' or the party responding to the
motion has designated a psychologist as a testifying expert
or disclosed a psychologist's records for possible use at
trial." In re Reliable Com. Roofing Servs., No.
01-15-00450-CV, 2016 WL 3345483, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston
[1st Dist.] May 24, 2016, orig. proceeding) (citing In re
Medina, No. 01-07-007474-CV, 2007 WL 4279171, at *2
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 6, 2007, orig.
cause" for Rule 204.1(c) is shown when (1) the
examination is relevant to issues in the case and that the
examination will produce, or is likely to lead to, relevant
evidence; (2) there is a reasonable nexus between the
condition of the person to be examined and the examination
sought; and (3) it is impossible to obtain the desired
information through means that are less intrusive than a
compelled examination. Id. (citing Coates v.
Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 753 (Tex. 1988)). The
"in controversy" requirement varies according to
whether physical or mental medical exams are at issue.
Medina, 2007 WL 4279171, at *2. Physical injuries
have been held to be in controversy when a party (1) places
the condition into controversy by employing it either in
support of, or in defense of, a claim or (2) a party
affirmatively shows that the ...