Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
IN RE MCALLEN ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS, P.A., DOCTORSHOSPITAL AT RENAISSANCE, LTD. D/B/A DOCTORS HOSPITAL ATRENAISSANCE, AND EDGAR ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ, M.D.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
McAllen Anesthesia Consultants, P.A., Doctors Hospital at
Renaissance, Ltd. d/b/a Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, and
Edgar Armando Rodriguez, M.D., filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the above cause on March 12, 2018. Through this
original proceeding, relators seek a writ of mandamus
compelling the trial court to vacate its order denying
relators' motion to quash and to issue an order
prohibiting all discovery until "all [d]efendants have
been served with a proper expert report." Relators, in
sum, seek to quash the deposition of their co-defendant,
Roger Sims. The underlying proceeding is a health care
liability suit and relators contend that this discovery
violates section 74.351(s) of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code because they have not been served with an
expert report in this case.  See Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(s) (West, Westlaw through
2017 1st C.S.).
Court requested and received a response to the petition for
writ of mandamus from the real parties in interest, Jose
David Sanchez, individually and as guardian of the person and
estate of Arleena Mancha Sanchez and as next friend of
D.A.S., a minor. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.2, 52.4,
52.8. Relators have filed a reply to the real parties'
response. Relators have further filed an "Advisement to
the Court Concerning Service of Expert Report on Defendant
Roger Sims, CRNA." According to this pleading and the
attached "Notification of Service, " Sims and the
other defendants in the suit have been served with the
"Chapter 74 Expert Report of Jay Ellis, M.D."
is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery
Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear
abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492
S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator
bears the burden of proving both of these requirements.
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302;
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)
(orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a
trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is
made without regard for guiding legal principles or
supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of
Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding);
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex.
2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by
balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the
detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524,
528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
discovery order that compels production beyond the rules of
procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the
proper remedy. In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507
S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). A trial court
clearly abuses its discretion when it compels discovery from
a health care provider in circumstances where the health care
provider is entitled to first be served with a section 74.351
(a) expert report and curriculum vitae. See In re
Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 420-21 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
proceeding); In re Sandate, No. 05-17-00871-CV, 2017
WL 4684072, at *2, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct.
19, 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Lumsden, 291
S.W.3d 456, 462 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, orig.
proceeding); see also In re McAllen Anesthesia
Consultants, P.A., No. 13-17-00584-CV, 2017 WL 6492002,
at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Dec. 18, 2017, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.).
Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for
writ of mandamus, the response, the reply, the record, and
the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not
shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, we
lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See
Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. We deny the petition for writ of
 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d)
("When granting relief, the court must hand down an
opinion as in any other case, " but when "denying
relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so."); Tex.R.App.P. 47.4 (distinguishing
opinions and memorandum opinions).
 This original proceeding arises from
trial court cause number C-3007-17-G in the 370th Judicial
District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, and the Honorable
Noe Gonzalez is the respondent. See Tex. R. App. P.
52.2. This Court conditionally granted mandamus relief in
this case. See In re McAllen Anesthesia Consultants,
P.A., No. 13-17-00584-CV, 2017 WL 6492002, ...