Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00195-CV
04-06-2016
IN RE A NEW HOPE HEALTH CARE, INC. AND ESPERANZA PENA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
On April 5, 2016, relators, A New Hope Health Care, Inc. and Esperanza Pena, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to stay the underlying proceedings. Through this original proceeding, relators contend that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to dismiss the underlying suit. According to relators, the underlying lawsuit filed by Gisel Garcia constitutes a health care liability claim, but Garcia failed to file an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(b) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Relators thus request that we compel the trial court to vacate its March 15, 2016 amended order denying their motion to dismiss and to grant their motion to dismiss. They further request that we stay all trial court proceedings pending resolution of this original proceeding.
Mandamus is an "extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the discretion of the court." In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). "Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal." In re Frank Motor Co., 361 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding); see In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d at 888; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Mandamus will not issue "when the law provides another plain, adequate, and complete remedy." In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 613 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36). Stated otherwise, mandamus should not issue to correct grievances that may be addressed by other remedies. In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. Relators have an adequate remedy by appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(9) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) (allowing an appeal from an interlocutory order that "denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b), except that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351"); Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546, 549 (Tex. 2011) "(The trial court's refusal to dismiss is immediately appealable."). Therefore, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion to stay the underlying proceedings.
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 6th day of April, 2016.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case."); Id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).