Beverly Scott, Gwendolyn Carpenter, Derrick Scott and Sammie Scott v. Dr. Robin Lynn Armstrong, Curtis J. Bickers and Vujasinovic & Beckcom PLLC

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-14-00319-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 16, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The document pertains to the case of Beverly Scott et al. (Appellants) versus Robin Lynn Armstrong, M.D., Curtis J. Bickers, and Vujasinovic. Beckcom PLLC (Appellees), filed in the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. It includes a response from Appellee Robin Lynn Armstrong, M.D., to the Appellants' amended brief. The Appellee argues that the Appellants failed to present any issues challenging the trial court's ruling, specifically regarding the affirmative defense of statute of limitations. Consequently, they assert that the trial court's summary judgment should be upheld. The document outlines the identities of parties and counsel, references to the record and authorities, and includes a structured argument that addresses the lack of factual issues concerning fraudulent concealment. The trial judge overseeing the case was Honorable Wesley Ward of the 234th Judicial District Court. The brief also contains compliance and service certificates.

Appellee Robin Armstrong, M.D. submits a Response to Appellants’ Amended Brief, requesting the affirmation of the trial court's decision to grant his Motion for Interlocutory Summary Judgment and to dismiss Appellants’ claims with prejudice. Armstrong incorporates his previous briefs and those of other defendants in this case, addressing allegations of fraudulent concealment and drug overdose injury from the Appellants’ Amended Brief. 

Armstrong asserts that the Appellants’ filings do not identify any errors committed by the trial court and emphasize that the Appellants have waived their primary argument regarding the statute of limitations by failing to address it in their Amended Brief. He notes that the plaintiffs filed suit nearly two years after the statute of limitations expired, thus failing to raise a fact issue against Armstrong's established affirmative defense.

Armstrong critiques the Appellants’ Amended Brief for lacking essential components required by Texas appellate rules, including a statement of the issues, a concise statement of the case, and a summary of the argument. He argues that this failure constitutes a waiver of their claims on appeal, as the brief does not present a clear argument or properly supported facts. Armstrong emphasizes that the court is not obligated to review inadequately presented issues, further supporting his request for dismissal.

Refusal to review claims arises when cited authorities lack specific briefing, as evidenced in Whittaker v. Manpower, where the court dismissed a case for failing to meet appellate rules. Similarly, in Jurek v. Herauf, issues were overruled due to absence of citations to the record or relevant authority. Appellants' ineffective assistance of counsel claim was deemed waived for insufficient briefing. The plaintiffs’ references to "fraudulent concealment" and "drug overdose injury" did not present a valid fact issue to counter summary judgment, as they failed to demonstrate that Armstrong knew of any wrongdoing or had a duty to disclose it, nor did they prove concealment that hindered discovery before the statute of limitations expired, based on Shah v. Moss. Additionally, cited Texas Code provisions concerning justice of the peace duties were irrelevant to the healthcare provided by Dr. Armstrong and did not substantiate the fraudulent concealment claim. The appellants did not adequately connect their arguments to the law or support their factual assertions with record evidence, leading the court to conclude that their issues against Armstrong were waived. The summary judgment favoring Armstrong is affirmed.

The trial court's judgment is to be affirmed on the grounds that the Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit beyond the statute of limitations and have failed to present any valid exceptions to this limitation. Appellee, Robin Armstrong, M.D., requests the court to uphold the trial court's April 8, 2014, order that granted Armstrong's summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice, in addition to any further relief deemed appropriate. The attorneys representing Appellee are Richard M. Law and Rainy DeMoss Gibbs from Smith Adams Law Feehan LLP, located in Houston, Texas. A compliance certificate indicates the brief contains 790 words, excluding those not counted per Texas appellate rules. A certificate of service confirms that copies of the brief were duly served to all parties involved on March 16, 2015, through regular and certified mail and electronic service.