Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
in Re Kelly Kilcoyne, M.D.
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-22-00082-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 21, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Kelly Kilcoyne, M.D. seeks mandamus relief from a trial court order that struck the designation of Stryker Corporation and J.J. Trujillo as responsible third parties in a medical malpractice case, invoking Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. For mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy on appeal. A trial court is deemed to have abused its discretion if its decision is arbitrary and unreasonable, equating to clear legal error. Under Chapter 33, a trial court cannot deny a timely filed motion to designate a responsible third party unless there is a pleading defect and an opportunity to cure. The trial court is required to strike a designation if, after adequate discovery, no evidence supports the designated person’s responsibility for the claimant's injury, and the defendant fails to produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact. The appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to strike mirrors that of a no-evidence summary judgment. Mandamus relief may be warranted if the trial court abuses its discretion in denying a timely filed motion to designate a responsible third party, as failing to allow such designations can distort trial proceedings and adversely impact the defense. The issue of whether mandamus relief is applicable when a trial court strikes a responsible third party designation, rather than denying a motion to designate, is considered a different but related question. The real parties in interest in Eagleridge raised the question of whether mandamus is suitable when a responsible-third-party designation has been stricken, as this differs from a denial made initially. They argued that while granting leave to designate is a decision made based on pleadings, striking a designation is merit-based and resembles a summary judgment, for which mandamus is typically not available. They contended that mandamus should only be allowed when the relator can show that the benefits outweigh any potential detriments. The supreme court, however, did not resolve this issue, concluding instead that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the designation. After reviewing the petition for writ of mandamus and all related responses and briefs, the court determined that the relator failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or a lack of adequate remedy by appeal. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.