In Re Baylor Medical Center at Garland (Tex. 2009),
No. 06-0491 (Tex. Jul 3, 2009) (mandamus) (trial judge granted new trial and then resigned, multiple
successive judges on case, mandamus abatement)
IN RE BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER AT GARLAND; from Dallas County;
5th district (05-05-01663-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-04-06 Opinion of the Dallas Court below)
as reinstated, stay order issued August 29, 2008, lifted
The Court conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [3-page pdf opinion]
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice
Green joined.
View Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 06-0491 IN RE BAYLOR MED. CTR. AT GARLAND
OPINION EXCERPT: [A]bsent specific reasons for the March 13, 2009 ruling, we
cannot determine whether the affirmation of the original new trial order was an
abuse of discretion. In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex.
2009). Accordingly, we deny without prejudice Baylor’s request for mandamus
directing the trial court to set aside the new trial order. See id.
Nevertheless, based on In re Columbia, decided after the trial court entered its
March 13, 2009 order, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enter
judgment on the jury verdict and granting a new trial without specifying its reasons
for doing so. Id. Accordingly, we conditionally grant relief and direct the trial court to
specify the reasons that it refused to enter judgment on the jury verdict and affirmed
the granting of a new trial. See id. The order will issue only if the trial court fails to
comply.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRIOR SUPREME COURT OPINION IN THE SAME CASE:
In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland, No. 06-0491 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Brister)(HCLC, mandamus
proceeding abated to afford new trial judge opportunity to reconsider issue of granting / ungranting new
trial, plenary power)
IN RE BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER AT GARLAND; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-05-01663-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-04-06)
abatement order issued
stay order issued
The Court abates this cause pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Green, Justice Medina, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion. (would address problem raised by the case through
Court's rulemaking power)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In Re Baylor Medical Center at Garland (Tex. 2009)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Argued September 27, 2007
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice O’Neill filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice
Green joined.
In this health care liability case, the jury returned a defense verdict following almost four weeks of trial.
The trial judge granted a new trial, eventually stated his reasons for doing so, but then resigned. We
conclude that the reasons the judge gave for granting the new trial cannot be considered as a basis for
mandamus relief against successor trial judges. However, because the case was remanded pursuant to
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b) and the trial court reaffirmed the original new trial order without
giving reasons for doing so, we conditionally grant mandamus relief directing the trial court to provide its
reasons for refusing to enter judgment on the jury verdict.
Alleging that she suffered an injury as a result of negligent treatment, Tammy Williams and her husband,
Steve, (collectively, Williams) brought a health care liability suit against Baylor Medical Center. The jury
answered “No” to the first issue that combined the negligence and proximate cause inquiries. The sitting
trial judge, the Honorable Joseph P. Cox, entered a take-nothing judgment. Williams filed a motion for new
trial and, in support of the motion, juror affidavits that included information relating to jury deliberations.
Judge Cox granted the motion for new trial but gave no reason for doing so. At a later pretrial hearing,
the judge said he granted the new trial solely because of the juror affidavits. After hearing the reason the
new trial was granted, Baylor sought a writ of mandamus from the court of appeals directing the trial court
to vacate its order granting a new trial. The court of appeals denied relief.___ S.W.3d ___.We set Baylor’s
petition for oral argument.
In the meantime, Judge Cox resigned and was succeeded by Judge Nancy Thomas. Pursuant to the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we abated the case for Judge Thomas to consider the new trial
order. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b). Judge Thomas set the new trial order aside but later vacated her ruling
and reinstated the order.
Following Judge Thomas’s ruling, Baylor continued its quest for mandamus relief.1 After we heard oral
argument on Baylor’s petition, a new judge was elected and succeeded Judge Thomas. We again abated
the case pursuant to Rule 7.2(b).We also held that a trial court may reconsider a new trial order as long
as the case is still pending. In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. 2008)
(overruling Porter v. Vick, 888 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. 1994)).On March 13, 2009, the trial court affirmed Judge
Cox’s order granting a new trial without stating any reasons for doing so.
Baylor continues to assert that the order disregarding the jury verdict and granting a new trial on the
basis of juror affidavits was a clear abuse of discretion. However, we do not consider the reasons Judge
Cox gave for granting the new trial in determining whether a successor judge abused his or her discretion
in refusing to enter judgment on the verdict. See id. at 227 (“Mandamus will not issue against a new judge
for what a former one did.”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b).And absent specific reasons for the March 13,
2009 ruling, we cannot determine whether the affirmation of the original new trial order was an abuse of
discretion. In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009). Accordingly, we deny
without prejudice Baylor’s request for mandamus directing the trial court to set aside the new trial order.
See id.
Nevertheless, based on In re Columbia, decided after the trial court entered its March 13, 2009 order, the
trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enter judgment on the jury verdict and granting a new trial
without specifying its reasons for doing so. Id. Accordingly, we conditionally grant relief and direct the trial
court to specify the reasons that it refused to enter judgment on the jury verdict and affirmed the granting
of a new trial. See id. The order will issue only if the trial court fails to comply.
________________________________________
Phil Johnson
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: July 3, 2009
1 Williams urges that Baylor’s petition is defective because Baylor failed to submit a copy of the motion to
reconsider the original order and a transcript of the hearing before Judge Thomas in violation of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (requiring relators to file a copy of every
document that is material to their claims and a transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying
proceeding).Both parties’ briefs contain the transcript of the hearing, and the parties do not differ on the
substance of the motion or what occurred during the hearing. We consider the record properly before us.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(b) (“After the record is filed, relator or any other party to the proceeding may file
additional materials for inclusion in the record.”).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In Re Baylor Medical Center at Garland (Tex. 2009) (O'Neill, dissenting)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Argued September 27, 2007
Justice O’Neill, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice Green, dissenting.
For the reasons expressed today in my dissenting opinion in In re Columbia Medical Center of Las
Colinas, Cause No. 06-0416, I respectfully dissent.
_________________________________
Harriet O’Neill
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: July 3, 2009