Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of April 11, 2022.
NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.
Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.
Texas Health Harris Methodist Hosp. Fort Worth v. Featherly, No. 02-19-00199-CV (Apr. 14, 2022) (Birdwell, J., joined by Wallach, J.; Walker, J., dissents with opinion).
Held: Appellant’s statutory lien is valid; even though Appellant did not admit Appellee as an inpatient, Appellee was “admitted”––according to the plain language and historical understanding of Property Code Sections 55.0015 and 55.002––when he was briefly treated in Appellant’s emergency room. Additionally, the trial court erred by excluding evidence related to Appellee’s pre-litigation demand and settlement of his claim against the defendant in the underlying personal-injury action because it was relevant to Appellant’s claim that Appellee ratified the full amount of its claimed lien.
Dissent: Because the admission of Appellee’s discovery responses would have necessarily required an inadmissible examination of what was considered in settlement negotiations and what amounts were included in the settlement amount, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence under Rules 408, as well as Rule 403. Moreover, any error in excluding the evidence was harmless because the jury had other evidence of the full-lien amount and still rejected it.
Lon Smith & Assocs., Inc., and A-1 Sys., Inc. d/b/a Lon Smith Roofing and Constr. v. Joe Key and Stacci Key, No. 02-21-00227-CV (Apr. 14, 2022) (Wallach, J., joined by Bassel and Walker, JJ.).
Held: Appellants expressly or impliedly waived the right to arbitrate Appellees’ individual claims, and the trial court correctly declined to compel arbitration of any potential class members’ claims because those claims are not ripe. As for the trial court’s