PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROBERT G. NETTLES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HELEN NETTLES, DECEASED, STEPHEN NETTLES & KAREN MENARD--Appeal from 157th District

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2006 » PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROBERT G. NETTLES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HELEN NETTLES, DECEASED, STEPHEN NETTLES & KAREN MENARD--Appeal from 157th District

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-05-00093-CV

Case Date: 06/15/2006

Plaintiff: PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant: ROBERT G. NETTLES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HELEN NETTLES, DECEASED, STEP

Preview:Robert E. Neimes, M.D.; Gary Woo, M.D.; The Texas
Center for Infectious Disease; The San Antonio Chest
Hospital; and The Texas Department of Health v. Kien
Chung Ta and Stephen Fisher--Appeal from 57th
Judicial District Court of Bexar County
MAJORITY | MAJORITY
DISSENTING OPINION
No. 04-97-00916-CV
Robert E. NEIMES, M.D., Gary Woo, M.D., Individually and in Their Official Capacities,
Texas Center for Infectious Disease, San Antonio State Chest Hospital, and Texas Department of Health,Appellants
v.
Kien Chung TA & Stephen Fisher,
Appellees
From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 95-CI-09760
Honorable Peter Michael Curry, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Dissenting opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice
Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 25, 1998
Reminiscent of dark images from Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, Kien Chung Ta and Stephen Fisher filed suit
against the Texas Department of Health, the San Antonio State Chest Hospital, and two doctors associated with the
hospital, alleging Ta and Fisher were the victims of gross mistreatment while hospitalized for treatment of
tuberculosis. The Department, the Hospital, and Drs. Neimes and Woo denied the allegations and sought summary
judgment declaring them immune from liability under the very difficult facts of this case, which all too clearly reveal
the precarious position of doctors and health care facilities when they treat non-compliant patients who have dangerous
contagious diseases. But no trial court or jury will ever have the opportunity to sift through the evidence and grapple
with the important issues presented, because a majority of this court has concluded that they cannot determine whether
the trial court considered Ta and Fisher's late-filed response to the motion for summary judgment. Unable to determine
whether the response was considered by the trial court, the majority presumes that it was not, ultimately leading the
majority to substantially reverse the trial court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Because the record before
this court indicates that the trial court did consider Ta and Fisher's late-filed response to the motion for summary
judgment, and because the response precludes summary judgment in favor of the appellants, I dissent.
The response to the motion for summary judgment with attached affidavits should be considered by this court because
the record indicates that it was considered by the trial court. The majority relies on numerous cases, several from this
court, which stand for the proposition that appellate courts presume the trial court did not consider a late-filed response
unless the record indicates that the trial court granted leave to file the untimely response.(1) The cases cited in the
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15263.html[8/20/2013 7:36:27 PM]

majority opinion are all similar in that there was nothing in the record in those cases which the appellate court could
cite as evidence that the trial court allowed the late-filed response. See INA of Texas v. Bryant, 686 S.W.2d 614, 615
(Tex. 1985) ("nothing appears of record to indicate that the late filing was with leave of court"); Evans v. Conlee, 741
S.W.2d 504, 509-10 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1987, no writ) ("record does not reflect that leave of court to file a late
response was requested or granted;" since controverting affidavit not mentioned in the judgment, court presumed it was
not considered); Pinckley v. Gallegos, 740 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1987, writ denied) (record failed
to "reflect that any request for leave to file a late response" was filed and was silent about whether the trial court
considered the untimely response); Nava v. Steubing, 700 S.W.2d 668, 670-71 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1985, no writ)
(response to summary judgment and motion for leave to file late response were both filed six days after the summary
judgment hearing; there was no order on the motion for leave and the judgment was otherwise silent about the late-
filed response; court presumed that the trial court did not allow the late-filed response).
The cited cases are distinguishable from the instant case. In this case, the record does not contain an order permitting
the late-filed response, but the record does reflect that the trial court considered the response. Appellants received a
copy of Ta and Fisher's response to the motion for summary judgment in time to prepare written objections to the
response and the attached affidavit of Dr. Aitcheson.(2) Appellants' written objections were ruled upon by the trial
court, and the court's written rulings are contained in the record. This is surely evidence that the trial court allowed the
late-filed response. Why would the trial court rule on objections if it was not going to consider the response at all
because of its untimely filing?(3) By contrast, none of the cases relied on by the majority involve a situation where
there was a ruling by the trial court on substantive objections to the response. When, as here, the record reflects that
late-filed pleadings were considered by the trial court, then any failure to obtain permission for the late-filing is
corrected. See Goswami v. Metropolitan Savings & Loan Ass'n, 751 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Tex. 1988); Rath v. State, 788
S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied).
Additionally, appellants have waived their complaint about the late-filed response. Undoubtedly Rule 166a places on
Ta and Fisher the burden to obtain permission to file their response late. It does not follow, however, that placement of
that burden on the non-movants thereby relieves the movants of the duty to object to a late-filed response. Here, the
appellants filed substantive objections to the response and controverting evidence, obtained written rulings on those
objections, and then "laid behind the log" until appeal before raising any objection about the timeliness of the response.
This exemplifies the type of gamesmanship that courts are loathe to endorse. The majority's concern that even greater
gamesmanship will result if we consider this late-filed response suffers from a fundamental flaw: merely objecting to a
non-movant's late-filed response does not "unwittingly ensur[e]" that the trial court will be presumed to have permitted
the late filing. See slip op. at 7-8. It is the affirmative action of the appellants in presenting the objections and
obtaining written rulings upon the objections that leads to the logical presumption that the court indeed allowed and
considered the late-filed response. The court's order ruling on appellants' objections is an affirmative indication of the
court's grant of leave to file untimely.
As further indication that the trial court in fact considered Ta and Fisher's response, one need only look at the outcome
in the court below. The substantive objections raised by appellants were in large part denied by the trial court, and
thereafter the motion for summary judgment was denied. On appeal appellants attack the very issues raised in the trial
court by their substantive objections. This is in contrast to many of the cases relied upon by the majority, where the
record was silent about consideration of the late-filed response, and the trial court granted the summary judgment. See
e.g., Nava, 700 S.W.2d at 670.
Further, there is authority for requiring appellants to preserve their complaint by objection in the trial court. See Davis
v. Davis, 734 S.W.2d 707, 712 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (allegation that party received
less notice than required by statute does not present a jurisdictional question and therefore may not be raised for the
first time on appeal). Generally, a party's right to complain about late-filed documents is subject to waiver if not made
to the trial court. See Hudenburg v. Neff, 643 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, writ ref'd
n.r.e.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 937 (1983). The Dallas Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in the summary
judgment context in City of Coppell v. General Homes Corp., 763 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1988, writ denied).
In that case the city filed its amended answer and its controverting affidavits and brief opposing General Homes'
motion for summary judgment on August 17. The summary judgment hearing was held on August 24. On appeal
General Homes contended the filing was not a full seven days before the hearing as required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15263.html[8/20/2013 7:36:27 PM]

Id. at 451. The court rejected General Homes' argument, not because it determined that the filing was timely, but
because General Homes did not file a motion to strike the documents and thus failed to preserve its complaint. Id.
The need to preserve error by objecting to the timeliness of the response is in keeping with the Supreme Court's
general emphasis on preservation, even in the summary judgment arena. Surely if a summary judgment movant should
file special exceptions to a non-movant's summary judgment response when the grounds of opposition are not
sufficiently clear, see McConnell v. Southside I.S.D., 858 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Tex.1993), then a summary judgment
movant should object to a non-movant's summary judgment response when it is untimely filed.
Finally, the majority asks whether the court should "permit any ruling regarding a pleading to constitute leave to file
that pleading," and answers its own question in the negative. Slip op. at 10. This answer is apparently driven by a
concern that the burden remain on the non-movants to obtain leave to file their response late. The majority implies that
requiring the movants to object to the late-filed response impermissibly shifts the burden established by Rule 166a,
and would have potentially deleterious implications in future cases. This musing by the majority is particularly
interesting in light of Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997), in which the supreme court overruled this
court and held that despite the dictates of Tex. R. App. P. 41(a)(1) (2)(4), a notice of appeal or cost bond filed within
the fifteen-day grace period vests an appellate court with jurisdiction, even if not accompanied by a motion for
extension of time. Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. The court ruled that the filing of a perfecting instrument within the
grace period necessarily implies a motion for extension of time. Id. Verburgt involved a matter of jurisdiction, and yet
the supreme court was willing to deviate from the literal terms of the governing rule. Id. The instant case does not even
raise issues of jurisdictional import, yet the majority remains wedded to a literal reading of Rule 166a that is more
restrictive than any other reported interpretation of the rule. The end result is that form has prevailed over substance.
For these reasons, I dissent.
CATHERINE STONE,
JUSTICE
PUBLISH
1. The cases relied upon by the majority refer to whether there is an affirmative indication in the record that the trial
court considered the late-filed response. The majority notes several times that the trial court's judgment does not
affirmatively state that the late-filed response was considered. This requirement is more stringent than previous
interpretations of Rule 166a.
2. In light of appellants' written reply and objections to the response, it is unsettling that appellants argued on appeal
that the response was not filed until after the hearing. In any event, the record contains a file-stamped copy of the
response showing it was filed on the same day as the hearing was held. Ta and Fisher have indicated in their briefs that
the response was hand-delivered to appellants' counsel and mailed to the Bexar County District Clerk several days
earlier.
3. Contrary to the majority's conclusion that this question invites us to speculate, it is nothing more than an attempt to
draw reasonable inferences from the record--a function very much within the bounds of our role as a reviewing court.
4. Now Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.
Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15263.html[8/20/2013 7:36:27 PM]

Download 15263.pdf