in Re Ruben Gonzalez

Citation: Not availableDocket: 04-15-00553-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 4, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ruben Gonzalez, the Relator, filed an Emergency Motion for Stay of Medical Examination following an order from Judge Monica Z. Notzon compelling him to undergo a medical exam by Dr. Gilbert Meadows, retained by Premier Eagle Ford Services, Inc., scheduled for September 9, 2015. The order was issued on August 25, 2015, and Gonzalez resides approximately 150 miles away in Laredo, Texas.

The background involves a vehicle collision on February 14, 2013, wherein Gonzalez was initially a defendant but later filed cross-claims against Premier Eagle and Casillas. Gonzalez sustained severe injuries from the accident. His treating physician, Dr. Gerardo Zavala, recommended a four-disc surgery, but after obtaining a second opinion from Dr. Alejandro Betancourt, Gonzalez opted for a single disc replacement surgery. He communicated this decision to Premier Eagle and Casillas prior to the surgery, which occurred on July 22, 2015.

Despite being informed of the single disc surgery, Premier Eagle and Casillas filed a Renewed Motion to Conduct Medical Examination, seeking to evaluate Gonzalez for the previously recommended four-disc surgery, which he had already declined. This motion did not reference the single disc surgery that had already been performed, raising concerns about the relevance and necessity of the examination they sought.

A hearing on the Renewed Motion was held on August 25, 2015, where Gonzalez informed the Respondent that he had already undergone single disc replacement surgery, rendering the Renewed Motion moot and making the requested medical examination unnecessary. Gonzalez argued that Premier Eagle and Casillas failed to demonstrate good cause for the medical examination, as less intrusive discovery methods had not been pursued. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus, submitted alongside an Emergency Motion for Stay of Medical Examination, claims that the Respondent abused her discretion by allowing the examination despite its mootness and lack of good cause. Premier Eagle and Casillas sought the examination to assess the need for a 4-disc surgery, referencing Dr. Gilbert Meadows' affidavit, which indicated a low likelihood of a positive outcome from such surgery. However, Gonzalez had already undergone the single disc surgery prior to the Renewed Motion being filed, negating the need for the examination. The legal standard for compelling a medical examination under Texas Rule 204 requires good cause, defined by three criteria: relevance to case issues, a reasonable connection between the individual's condition and the examination, and the inability to obtain necessary information through less intrusive means. Premier Eagle and Casillas did not establish that these criteria were met.

To establish the need for a medical examination under the relevant legal standards, the requesting party must demonstrate that less intrusive discovery methods have been exhausted. In the case cited, *Caballero*, the court emphasized that the movants failed to show that they could not obtain necessary information through less intrusive means, such as deposing the plaintiff’s doctors. Similarly, Premier Eagle and Casillas did not attempt to utilize available discovery methods, such as deposing the doctor who performed prior surgery or other treating physicians, nor did they conduct written post-surgery inquiries. Their Renewed Motion lacked any evidence or argument addressing their failure to exhaust these less intrusive alternatives. Dr. Meadows, in his affidavit, did not justify his opinion regarding the necessity of a subsequent surgery based on the information he reviewed. At the hearing on the Renewed Motion, Premier Eagle and Casillas again failed to provide evidence or reasoning on this issue. 

Gonzalez is seeking a stay of the ordered medical examination, which is set to occur on September 9, 2015, asserting a right to privacy that is infringed by the order. The urgency of the situation is highlighted by the impending examination date and the requirement for Gonzalez to travel a significant distance. The request for a stay is limited to the medical examination itself and does not affect other proceedings in the case. Gonzalez formally prays for the Court to grant the Emergency Motion to Stay the Medical Examination until a ruling is made on his Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

The attorneys for Gonzalez confirm compliance with notification rules regarding the motion for temporary relief and note opposition from opposing counsel.