District Court, S.D. Texas — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Brinkley Ex Rel. Brinkley v. Universal Health Services, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2002-04-12 · cited 3×
This case arose from a state-court wrongful death and medical malpractice action filed by the family of Patrick Dixon Brinkley against healthcare providers. After the plaintiffs' own expert was deposed and questioned about potential violations of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), the defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the denial of their remand request. The court held that the deposition testimony qualified as an "other paper" under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because it resulted from the voluntary act of the plaintiffs' counsel eliciting EMTALA-related facts and contentions, thereby making removal timely; the court further retained supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims arising from the same facts.
procedurehealthcaretorts & liability
Herrera v. CTS Corp.
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2002-01-15 · cited 12×
The case involved Jimmy Herrera suing his former employer CTS Corporation for disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act after being terminated from his Shipping Clerk position due to lifting restrictions from his vascular disease. The court granted CTS's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court reasoned that Herrera could not perform the essential functions of the job, which included lifting packages up to 90 pounds, even with accommodations, because any restructuring would improperly reallocate essential duties to other employees, and Herrera failed to reconcile his claim with his receipt of Social Security disability benefits.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Valley Regional Medical Center v. Wright
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2001-11-26 · cited 3×
The case involved Valley Regional Medical Center's lawsuit against Dr. Phillip G. Wright for amounts allegedly owed under a Physician Assistance Agreement, with Dr. Wright filing counterclaims for breach of contract. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the hospital and now denies Dr. Wright's motions for a new trial, to stay enforcement of the judgment, and to compel discovery, as well as his response to the sua sponte summary judgment ruling. Although the hospital had not properly pleaded a suit on a sworn account, summary judgment was upheld on the breach of contract claim because the contract required the non-breaching party to provide written notice of intent to terminate within sixty days of an alleged breach, and Dr. Wright's failure to do so constituted a waiver of his rights to remedies. The core reasoning rests on the explicit waiver provision in Section G.5 of the agreement, which the court applied to bar Dr. Wright's challenges to the hospital's performance and claimed damages.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Valley Regional Medical Center v. Wright
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2001-09-18 · cited 1×
The case concerned a dispute over a 1993 Physician Assistance Agreement between Valley Regional Medical Center and cardiac surgeon Dr. Phillip Wright, under which the hospital provided a guaranteed annual income of $480,000 in exchange for establishing a practice, with provisions for repayment of advances based on reported gross receipts. After a corporate merger involving parent company HCA, Valley Regional sued Dr. Wright for breach of contract and on a sworn account seeking repayment of advances, while Dr. Wright raised counterclaims and sued HCA for breach and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted summary judgment to both Valley Regional and HCA. It held that Valley Regional had established the elements of its claims and that Dr. Wright's defenses, including waiver for lack of notice and entitlement to offsets, lacked support in the record. HCA was not liable because it was not a party to the agreement, did not assume its obligations in the merger, and no facts supported veil-piercing.
business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure
De Leon v. Trevino
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2001-04-02 · cited 1×
The case involved three farm workers suing their employer Mario Trevino for unpaid wages after harvesting okra for three days in 1994. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failure to pay the federal minimum wage and of the Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) for providing false employment information, failing to post terms, omitting written pay statements, and not timely paying wages. The court granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion for summary judgment after finding undisputed evidence of the hours worked and the violations. It awarded specific unpaid minimum wages plus equal liquidated damages under the FLSA, $2,000 statutory damages per plaintiff for the four AWPA violations, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
labor & employment
In Re Patterson
District Court, S.D. Texas · 1995-09-26 · cited 2×
This case concerns a bankruptcy appeal in which debtors James and Shirley Patterson challenged a ruling on the timing of homestead exemptions. The debtors initially filed a Chapter 13 case claiming their urban residence as exempt, but after foreclosure they converted to Chapter 7 and sought to amend their schedules to claim a 40-acre rural property instead. The bankruptcy court held that exemptions are fixed as of the original filing date under Fifth Circuit precedent in In re Williamson. On de novo review, the district court reversed, adopting the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit in In re Lindberg that the date of conversion controls for exemption purposes and that Chapter 13 administration considerations support allowing the amendment, which was filed before the creditors' meeting and any trustee reliance. The court therefore permitted the rural property to be claimed as exempt.
propertyprocedure