= read publication
Publications & Presentations
Getting Back to Trial: Preparing for Appeal Throughout Litigation
Texas Trial Lawyers Association 2022 Mid-Year Conference & CLE, June 1-3, 2022
Welcome to the Jungle: Proving up medical bills after In re Allstate & In re K&L Auto Crushers
co-author(s): with Morgan McPheeters
Dallas Trial Lawyers Association, May 18, 2022
Can’t We All Just Be Reasonable When it Comes to 18.001?
co-author(s): with Hon. Daryl Moore and Kevin Yankowsky
State Bar of Texas, Advanced Trial Strategies, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 3-4, 2022
Serving as Appellate Counsel on a Trial Team
co-author(s): with D. Todd Smith and Jody Sanders
Texas Appellate Law Podcast (February 17, 2022)
Tips and Tools for Serving as the Appellate Attorney on Your Trial Team
Dallas Bar Association Appellate Law Section (February 17, 2022)
Tips and Tools for Serving as the Appellate Attorney on Your Trial Team
co-author(s): and the Honorable Dustin M. Howell
Advanced Civil Appellate Practice, State Bar of Texas, Austin, Texas (December 3, 2021)
Observations From an Appellate Attorney at Trial
2021 Advanced Tactics and Strategies, Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Santa Fe, New Mexico (September 10, 2021)
Liability for Emergency Medical Care Under the Revised Statute
27th Annual Advanced Medical Torts, State Bar of Texas (March 25-26, 2021)
Elections Have Consequences: The New Landscape in the Texas Courts of Appeals
co-author(s): and Kent Rutter
Tarrant County Trial Lawyers Association, Fort Worth, Texas, February 26, 2020
7 Reason We Need Appellate Counsel at Trial: Preservation of Error and Other Good Stuff
Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Fort Worth, Texas, November 7, 2019
Recovery of Medical Expenses Under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 41.0105 – The Paid or Incurred Statute
51 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 731 (Summer 2019)
Observations from an Appellate Attorney at Trial: Preservation of Error and Other Good Stuff
Houston Trial Lawyers Association, Houston, Texas (August 2018);
San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association, San Antonio, Texas (June 2018);
Tarrant County Trial Lawyers Association, Fort Worth, Texas (February 2018)
Submission of Pain and Suffering and Mental Anguish in the Jury Charge
The Advocate (State Bar Litigation Section Report-Vol. 77, Winter 2016)
The Review of New Trial Orders on Appeal
Vol. 40, No. 5, Dallas Bar Association: Headnotes (May 2015)
Recovery of Medical Expenses
State Bar of Texas CLE, 22nd Annual Advanced Medical Torts Course, San Antonio (March 12-13, 2015)
Recovering Medical Expenses in Personal Injury Cases
co-author(s): with Michael Yanof and Cassie Dallas
State Bar of Texas CLE, Damages in Civil Litigation 2014 (February 6-7, 2014)
Panel Discussion Regarding the Jury Charge and Charge Conference
co-author(s): with Judge Tonya Parker and Jody Rudman
Dallas Bar Association Trial Academy, Dallas, Texas (July 26, 2013)
Preservation of Error for Appeal
co-author(s): with Judge Mark Greenberg, Steve Gibson and Scott Stolley
Dallas Bar Association Tort & Insurance Practice Section, Dallas, Texas (July 9, 2013)
Chapter 74 Pleadings and Motions…Not as Simple as You Might Think
co-author(s): Jennifer King
State Bar of Texas, 20th Annual Advanced Medical Torts, San Antonio, Texas (March 14, 2013)
Escabedo Decision: Navigating the Recovery of Medical Damages in a Personal Injury Case
University of Texas School of Law, Insurance Law Institute, Austin, Texas (October 18, 2012)
Escabedo Decision: Navigating the Recovery of Medical Damages in a Personal Injury Case
Fort Bend County Bar Association, Sugarland, Texas (August, 30, 2012)
Escabedo Decision: Navigating the Recovery of Medical Damages in a Personal Injury Lawsuit
Soaking Up Some CLE, State Bar of Texas CLE (May 17-18, 2012)
Trends in Rulings by the Texas Courts of Appeals
Dallas Bar Association, Appellate Section (May 17, 2012)
Escabedo Decision: Navigating the Recovery of Medical Damages in a Personal Injury Case
Denton County Bench Bar Conference, Pottsboro, Texas (May 01, 2012)
Escabedo Decision: Navigating the Recovery of Medical Damages in a Personal Injury Lawsuit
Advanced Evidence and Discovery, State Bar of Texas CLE (April 26-27, 2012)
The Long, Long Road of Paid or Incurred
co-author(s): , Dan Worthington, and Milton C. Colia
Texas Association of Defense Counsel, Inc., 2012 Spring Meeting, Santa Fe, New Mexico (April 25, 2012)
Paid or Incurred after Escabedo
Permian Basin Trial Lawyers Association, Odessa, Texas (03/15/12)
Guest commentator, KTSA 550AM, regarding the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Haygood v. Escabedo concerning recovery of past medical expenses in civil cases
Justice for All – The Wyatt Wright Show (January 22, 2012)
Paid or Incurred after Escabedo
San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association, San Antonio, Texas (12/15/11)
What Every Young Lawyer Needs to Know About…Mandamus Practice
Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, Dallas, Texas (December 14, 2011)
Paid or Incurred After Escabedo
co-author(s): and Andy Payne
Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Advanced Personal Injury Seminar, Houston, Texas (December 1, 2011)
Legal Symposium for the Dallas Judiciary Regarding Paid or Incurred after Escabedo
co-author(s): with Andy Payne, Dan Worthington and Ken Riney
Dallas, Texas (October 13, 2011)
Escabedo/Paid vs Incurred
Road Rules Dallas: A Crash Course Car Wrecks Seminar, Dallas, Texas (October 6, 2011)
Legislative Update and the Escabedo Case
co-author(s): with Paula Sweeney, Tex Quesada, Brian Lauten, Dick Sayles, Mary Margaret Black and William Toles
Dallas Bar Association, Tort & Insurance Practice Section, Dallas, Texas (October 4, 2011)
Paid or Incurred after Escabedo
East Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Longview, Texas (September 21, 2011)
The Economics of Appeals: Fee Arrangements (including Alternative Arrangements) for Appellate Counsel
co-author(s): with Jeff Levinger, Oscar Rey Rodriguez, John Torres
State Bar of Texas, Appellate Section, Dallas, Texas (June 17, 2011)
Limitations and Repose: Molinet, Rankin, Walters & Offenbach
Texas Trial Lawyers Association Annual Meeting, Medical Malpractice Seminar, Austin, Texas (June 2, 2011)
Liability for Health Care Providers Under the Emergency Medical Care Statute
State Bar of Texas, Santa Fe, New Mexico (March 17, 2011)
How Appellate Counsel Can Add Value to Your Case Throughout Litigation
Mississippi Association for Justice, New Orleans (June 11, 2010)
Paid or Incurred: What’s Happened, and What’s on the Horizon
El Paso Trial Lawyers Association, El Paso, Texas (March 18, 2010)
Liability for Health Care Providers Under the Emergency Medical Care Statute
State Bar of Texas, Santa Fe, New Mexico (March 17, 2010)
What Every Young Lawyer Should Know About Legal Writing
co-author(s): with Justice Mary Murphy and Talmage Boston
Dallas Association of Young Lawyers (March 10, 2010)
The Rogue Ice Cube: What Texas Supreme Court Legal Sufficiency Review Means for Your Practice
Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Las Vegas, Nevada (February 26, 2010)
FAA Airman Enforcement Actions 101
RFC Dallas Flying Club, Addison, Texas (April 21, 2009)
The Fallibility of Eyewitness Testimony and the Texas Innocence Project
co-author(s): , et. al.
Patrick E. Higginbotham American Inn of Court, Dallas, Texas (April 15, 2009)
Appellate Tips for Trial Attorneys
Vol. 33, No. 4 Dallas Bar Association: Headnotes (April 1, 2009)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
East Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Jefferson, Texas (March 26, 2009)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
The University of Texas School of Law, 2008 The Car Crash Seminar, Austin, Texas (August 15, 2008)
How Appellate Counsel Can Add Value to Your Case Throughout Litigation
Houston TTLA Advocates (May 28, 2008)
Removal and Remand
Texas Association of Legal Professional 53rd Annual Board Meeting and Education Conference (May 3, 2008)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Car Wrecks Seminar, 2007 Annual Conference, Austin Texas (November 29, 2007)
Legal and Factual Sufficiency Review After City of Keller
co-author(s): and O. Rey Rodriguez
Dallas Bar Association, Appellate Law Section (October 18, 2007)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association, San Antonio, Texas (October 18, 2007)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
Tarrant County Trial Lawyers Association, Ft. Worth, Texas (October 10, 2007)
Removal and Remand
co-author(s): & Joshua Bernstein
Texas Advanced Paralegal Seminar, Dallas, Texas (October 4, 2007)
The Meaning and Application of HB 4’s “Paid or Incurred”
co-author(s): and Mike Huddleston
Dallas Bar Association, Torts and Insurance Practice Litigation Section (September 27, 2007)
Airmen Enforcement Actions 101 for Trial Attorneys.
American Association for Justice, Section Connection-Aviation Law, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Fall 2007)
How Appellate Counsel Can Add Value to Your Case Throughout Litigation
American Association for Justice 2007 Annual Convention (July 18, 2007)
How Can Appellate Counsel Add Value to Your Case Throughout Litigation?
American Association for Justice Annual Convention (June 29, 2007)
How Appellate Counsel Can Add Value to Your Case Throughout Litigation
El Paso County Trial Lawyers Association (June 28, 2007)
Removal and Remand
Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Advanced Personal Injury Seminar, Austin, Texas (May 31, 2007)
How Appellate Counsel Can Add Value to Your Case Throughout Litigation
Collin County Bench Bar Conference (April 20, 2007)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
Collin County Bench Bar Conference (April 20, 2007)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
Dallas Trial Lawyers Association and the Dallas Women Lawyers Association (January 25, 2007)
Dead or Alive: The Collateral Source Rule After HB4.
Vol. 37 The Advocate, Texas State Bar litigation Section (Winter 2006)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
Texas Trial Lawyers Association Car Wrecks Seminar (November 30, 2006)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
Tarrant County Trial Lawyers Association (October 25, 2006)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
co-author(s): and Andrew L. Payne
Mesquite Bar Association (October 18, 2006)
Removal and Remand
Dallas Area Paralegal Association (October 3, 2006)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
co-author(s): and Andrew L. Payne
South Plains Trial Lawyers Association (September 20, 2006)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
co-author(s): and Andrew L. Payne
Capital Area Trial Lawyers Association (July 11, 2006)
Removal and Remand
co-author(s): & James E. Girards
Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Advanced Personal Injury Seminar, Houston, Texas (May 11-12, 2006)
Paid or Incurred: Recovery of Medical Expenses
co-author(s): and Andrew L. Payne
Dallas Trial Lawyers Association (March 16, 2006)
The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation
Denton Trial Lawyers Association (February 16, 2006)
Preliminary Discovery: Plaintiffs’ Perspective
co-author(s): & Keith Patton
Harris Martin Benzene 101 Litigation Conference, San Antonio, Texas (February 2-3, 2006)
The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation
co-author(s): and William Richard Thompson
Dallas Bar Associationâ Trial Skills Section (December 9, 2005)
The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation
San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association (November 17, 2005)
The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation
co-author(s): and William Richard Thompson
Dallas Bar Associationâ Friday Clinic (September 2, 2005)
The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation
co-author(s): and William Richard Thompson
Capital Area Trial Lawyers Association (May 10, 2005)
The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation
co-author(s): and William Richard Thompson
Tarrant County Trial Lawyers Association (April 27, 2005)
The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation
co-author(s): and William Richard Thompson
Solo & Small Firm Section of the Dallas Bar Association (April 6, 2005)
What Good Is Appellate Counsel?
Vol. 1, Issue 4, Dallas Trial Lawyers Association: The Front Line (March 1, 2005)
The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation
co-author(s): and The Honorable Deborah Hankinson
Texas Trial Lawyers Association Annual Meeting (November 17, 2004)
Lawyer Referral Fees and Advertising: A Final Report From the State Bar
Vol. 28, No. 7 Dallas Bar Association Headnotes (July 1, 2004)
A View from the Bench-Differences Between State and Federal Court Practice
Vol. 28, No. 2 Dallas Bar Association: Headnotes (February 1, 2004)
Multidistrict Litigation: Texas Style
Vol. 28, No. 2 Dallas Bar Association: Headnotes (February 1, 2004)
Homeland Security: Plan Ahead Before Heading to Court
Vol. 27, No. 7 Dallas Bar Association: Headnotes (July 1, 2003)
Enforcement Procedures For the State Board For Education Certification and the Texas Educators’ Code of Ethics
co-author(s): , Neal W. Adams and Jon McCormick
Vol. 17, No. 9, Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest (October 1, 2001)
Withstanding Batson Muster: What Constitutes a Neutral Explanation
50 Baylor L. Rev. 985 (Fall 1998)
= read opinion
Significant Cases
Overruling Philbrook v. Berry, 683 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. 1985), and clarifying that a motion for new trial filed in the original cause is nonetheless sufficient to extend the appellate deadlines in a severed, final judgment, and clarifying the application of stare decisis generally and in cases transferred from one court of appeals to another.
Congratulations to Cynthia Huerta, David Glenn, Reed Morgan, Jake Glenn, and Kirk Pittard for their $1,265,000 jury verdict in Johnson County late on November 23, 2021. They represented a plaintiff who had worked for BNSF railroad for 37 years until he injured his knee and back while on the job.
Congratulations to DP&S lawyers Kirk Pittard and Tammy Holt who were part of a trial team lead by Steve Laird, Robert Collins, Seth McCloskey, and Bracken Millar, that recently settled a double-fatality trucking case for $19 Million (for non-economic damages only) the day before the case was set to go to trial in Tarrant County.
On motion for rehearing en banc, successfully convinced panel to reverse itself and award Plaintiffs the total damages ($1,070,050) awarded by jury, rather than a drastically reduced amount ($200,000) based on the amount originally pled. The court of appeals rejected its original position that the Plaintiffs’ attempt to amend its petition to be consistent with the jury’s verdict was an impermissible attempt to amend the pleadings “post-judgment.” A matter of first impression, the court of appeals adopted “the more reasonable view” that, because Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their petition before the Amended Final Judgment was signed, the amended pleading was timely.
Denial of State Farm’s mandamus petition seeking to avoid discovery in the uninsured/underinsured motorist context. In doing so, the court of appeals discusses at length the distinction between a breach of contract claim against the UM/UIM insurer and common law or statutory claims for breach of duties of good faith and fair dealing. Noting a distinction based on the historical development of the claims and their accrual, the court of appeals found that Brainard does not foreclose such claims. Rather, another line of cases, beginning with the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Arnold (and modified later by Murray), which hold that the insurer’s duties of good faith and fair dealing can accrue prior to a judgment that would trigger the insurer’s contractual liability, controls and allows such claims, and supported the trial court’s order compelling discovery related to the insurer’s claims-handling practices.
Successfully dismissed interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction by independent contractor who contracted with a government entity to manage a nursing home. Claiming derivative sovereign immunity, the contractor sought to appeal the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. Without reaching the substance of the derivative sovereign immunity claim, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that contracting with a government entity did not transform the contractor into a “governmental entity” entitled to appeal under the interlocutory appeal statute.
Affirming denial of second Chapter 74 motion to dismiss filed by operators of facilities for young people with mental disabilities filed after unsuccessful appeal of the first Chapter 74 motion to dismiss, finding the law of the case doctrine barred second motion to dismiss based on the same facts.
Denying mandamus relief, finding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking responsible third party designation by owner of gas facility of former minority-interest owner and contract-operator. The court of appeals held that the minority owner, who sold its interest in the premises to the majority owner prior to the personal injuries at issue, owed no duty to the injured plaintiff because, under premises-liability principles, any such duty passed to the majority owner when its interest was sold.
After a two-week trial, DP&S partner, Kirk Pittard, along with a trial team that included Steve Laird, Seth McCloskey, Tim Brandenburg, and Pete Kestner, secured a $12.5 million settlement in an 18-wheeler-motorcycle collision case in Rockwall County. The collision occurred when the plaintiff, who was alleged to be going 60 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h. zone and attempting to time the green light as he entered the intersection, hit a Mercer 18-wheeler that had run a red light. The plaintiff, who survived the accident, is now blind and paralyzed. It was an all-hands-on-deck effort that led to the settlement just before closing argument.
In matter of first impression, affirming denial of Chapter 74 motions to dismiss filed by newly-added nurses, holding that for purposes of section 74.351(a), an action does not commence as to each defendant until it is first named as a defendant.
Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, the State’s sovereign immunity is waived if a negligent decision is coupled with use of tangible personal property and the use proximately causes injury. Because the Act does not require that the tangible personal property be used in a negligent manner in order to waive sovereign immunity, the Texas Supreme Court held that the hospital’s use of an improper solution during a chemotherapy procedure was sufficient to waive immunity.
Successfully upheld an order denying a motion to transfer venue in a Texas Dram Shop Act case from Dallas County to Tarrant County on the basis that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded a cause of action against an employee of a bar who resided in Dallas County at the time of the incident. In an issue of first impression, the court of appeals unanimously held that the plain language of the Dram Shop Act provides a civil cause of action against not just the bar itself, but also an individual employee who overserves an intoxicated person.
Successfully defending trial court’s denial of an untimely motion to dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (the anti-SLAPP statute), finding the 60-day deadline to file the motion was not reset by an amended pleading that “d[id] not alter the essential nature” of the trade secret claim, “of which appellants had notice in the original petition.”
Approving sufficiency of expert’s report under Chapter 74, rejecting attack on “believability” of expert’s preliminary report, and holding that a board-certified orthopedic surgeon is qualified to offer an opinion as to the standard of care required of an emergency physician prescribing crutches, even though surgeon was not an emergency physician.
Successfully reversed summary judgment in favor of insured and insurer after defense counsel assigned by insurer agreed to settlement of claims but insured withdrew consent, where insurance policy was a non-consent policy which gave insurer unilateral right to settle case and insured no right to consent or, in this case, withdraw consent.
Holding that a funeral home owes a common law duty to a deceased’s next of kin to not mishandle the deceased’s body and that such a duty need not be based on the existence of a contract.
Successfully defeating hospital’s mandamus petition challenging a trial court order taking judicial notice of administrative rules promulgated by the Texas Medical Board.
Successfully defended medical providers’ appeal, challenging the plaintiff’s Chapter 74 expert reports in a case in which the medical providers’ negligence resulted in the amputation of the plaintiff’s leg.
Reversed and rendered judgment following permissive appeal, holding that section 74.153 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies a lower “willful and wanton” standard of care to medical care provided in a hospital emergency room does not apply to medical care provided an expectant mother in an obstetrical unit.
In suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) in which grandparents sought managing conservatorship over the child, court of appeals concluded that the grandparents did not have standing to file the SAPCR because they did not have actual care and control over the child for the statutory required six months.
In a breach of contract case arising out of the sale of a helicopter, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s sua sponte grant of summary judgment against the buyer on a notice of revocation/rejection of acceptance issue never raised by the seller, finding that the District Court abused its discretion by not considering the evidence of rejection or revocation presented by the buyer in its Rule 59(e) motion.
Dismissing interlocutory appeal, originating from claim that collision with cow owned by a former doctor was really a health care liability case that required a Chapter 74 expert report, and sanctioning doctor and his attorney for refusing to dismiss frivolous appeal.
Denying mandamus relief and requiring the production of electronically stored information in native or near native format.
Reversing trial court’s dismissal of a medical malpractice case, concluding that trial court abused its discretion in doing so and that the Chapter 74 expert report sufficiently demonstrated a causal relationship between the physician’s negligence and the death of Mr. Mitchell.
Denial of emergency motion to stay and mandamus relief in a case in which the trial court granted a new trial based on its finding that the jury’s defense verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
Successfully defeated petition for review in a medical malpractice case in Navarro v. Washington, 10-13-00248-CV, 2014 WL 1882763 (Tex. App.—Waco May 8, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.), which upheld the sufficiency of the patient’s expert doctors’ reports under Chapter 74.
Denial of petition for mandamus when the defendant challenged the trial court’s new trial order which was based on the jury’s verdict being against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
Denial of petition for mandamus when the defendant challenged the trail court’s new trial order entered after the defendant asked the trial court to impose constitutional due process limitations to a punitive damages award.
Dismissal of interlocutory appeal challenging Chapter 74 expert report for want of jurisdiction in a medical malpractice case.
Rejecting the self-critical analysis privilege and requiring the production of relevant reports in a products liability case.
Requiring return of erroneously forfeited attorney’s fees.
Reversing jury verdict in legal malpractice case against law firm where client failed to present medical-expert testimony in support of damage causation
Affirming a judgment for approximately $1 million based on findings of fraud, DTPA violations, and gross negligence, as well as a finding piercing the corporate veil, arising out of a contractor’s failed effort to repair a foundation that ruined a homeowner’s house.
Denial of petition for review in case challenging a Chapter 74 expert report in a medical malpractice case.
Reversing a summary judgment concluding that a law firm failed to prove that attorney’s fees of over $1 million for just over 2 months of work in representing a small business was reasonable and necessary under the Arthur Anderson factors.
Upholding default judgment after death penalty discovery sanctions, actual and punitive damages, and enforceability of a non-compete agreement.
Reversing and remanding for a new trial when trial court refused to include the correct corporate entity on the jury form.
Upholding jury verdict in an automobile design defect case finding circumstantial evidence to support causation and sufficient evidence of an unreasonably dangerous design and of a safer alternative design.
Denying arbitration due to substantial invocation of the judicial process.
Upholding monetary sanctions against a defense attorney who violated a court order by making ex parte contacts with a plaintiff’s treating physicians.
Denying petition for mandamus concerning trial court’s denial of a motion to designate a responsible third party.
Denying petition for mandamus concluding that the parties may agree to alter the statutory deadlines for designating responsible third parties.
In a case involving product liability design defect tried to a favorable jury verdict, settling after oral argument.
Reversing trial court’s forfeiture of a plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.
Issued mandamus requiring a jury trial rejecting argument that a signed arbitration provision constituted a jury waiver.
Reversing a case that had been dismissed for want of prosecution.
Rejecting John Deere’s argument that a discovery order covering multiple makes and models of equipment was overly broad and unduly burdensome and establishing that a defendant bears the burden of proving the bases for objections raised in discovery.
Affirming denial of a doctor and his urology group’s motion to dismiss based on a challenge to an expert report in a medical malpractice case.
Reversing a summary judgment and an $829,816 judgment on counterclaims asserted against a plaintiff in a commercial real estate case.
Reversing a summary judgment granted against a personal injury plaintiff based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel due to an inadvertent omission in a bankruptcy filing.
Upholding an $869,200 judgment for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiff was hit in the back by a pallet jack being driven by a Wal-Mart employee.
Affirming an $8.5 million judgment in favor of a physician who was wrongfully terminated from his practice group.
Reversing a jury verdict in which a jury had awarded managing conservatorship of a child to a non-parent couple instead of to the natural father.
Affirming denial of a motion to dismiss based on a challenge to an expert report in a medical malpractice case.
Affirming denial of motion to dismiss based on challenge to an expert report in a medical malpractice case. Also holding that an expert need not opine as to willful and wanton negligence in a chapter 74 report despite argument that case is governed by the Emergency Room statute.
Reversing and remanding a $1,070,643 judgment based on a counterclaim asserted against the Plaintiff for claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligence.
Reversing and rendering a judgment based on legally insufficient evidence in a case involving a challenge to a deed conveying real property.
Granting the Plaintiff’s motion for remand in a toxic tort Benzene exposure case based on a lack of complete federal preemption.
Reversing and remanding the trial court’s granting of a no evidence summary judgment in a negligent hiring case.
Affirming the denial of Dallas County’s Plea to the Jurisdiction.
Affirming claim for workers compensation benefits when carrier does not comply with statutory deadlines for denying a claim.
Appeal of a forcible entry and detainer action.
Affirming a punitive damages award in a Sabine Pilot wrongful termination case.
Involved the reversal of a dismissal of a medical malpractice case concerning the adequacy of a 4590i expert report.
Affirming a punitive damages award in an asbestos case.