Opinion
No. 04-03-00037-CV.
Delivered and Filed: May 7, 2003.
Appeal from the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2002-CI-17626, Honorable Michael Peden, Judge Presiding.
Although the temporary injunction was signed by the Honorable Michael Peden, it was heard and granted by the Honorable Johnny Gabriel.
REVERSED AND REMANDED; INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.
Sitting: Catherine STONE, Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal. In a single point of error, Gracie Perez and Acclaim Medical Billing and Management Services, Inc. argue the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a temporary injunction. We agree and therefore reverse the trial court's order, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Factual and Procedural Background
Perez and Gil signed a contract by which Acclaim agreed to provide billing services to Gil in exchange for seven percent of the amount collected on the accounts. Although the contract specified the services Acclaim was to provide, including "[m]aintenance of all billing and collection records" and providing Gil with "[e]nd of month reports," it did not specify the format in which the reports were to be delivered. Nor did the contract specify the format in which the records or the information contained in the records was to be delivered to Gil when the contract was terminated.
After becoming dissatisfied with Acclaim's services, Gil terminated the contract and hired a new billing service. Acclaim returned Gil's medical records but balked at Gil's request for "a detailed printout on every open account, which includes dates of service, amount billed, amount collected and balance due." Because Perez viewed this as a request for "additional services" — "providing [Gil] with the same information previously provided to [him], only in a different format" — she agreed to provide the printout only if Gil paid an additional $750.00. Gil refused to pay and instead filed suit against Perez and Acclaim for breach of contract, conversion, tortious interference with contract, deceptive trade practice, misrepresentation and fraud, negligence, and gross negligence. Gil sought damages, as well as a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction.
After granting a temporary restraining order to protect Gil's records and accounts receivable, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Gil's request for a temporary injunction. At the conclusion of the hearing on December 18, 2002, the trial court orally ordered Perez to provide Gil with the information in the format he desired within ten days. The order was not signed until January 10, 2003. Nevertheless, it requires Acclaim and Perez to provide Gil "within ten (10) calendar days from the temporary injunction hearing" "a copy of all accounting, billing and/or collection records for Dr. Gil in a commercially acceptable form. The records provided . . . shall include a detail for each date of service for each patient with an outstanding balance. The detail shall include: (1) patient name and social security number; (2) patient date of birth; (3) dates and description of services for each date in which a balance remains; and (4) insurance payments and disallowances." Bond was set at $250.00. Gil was also ordered to deposit $750.00 into the registry of the court. Perez appealed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 51.014(4) (Vernon Supp. 2002). Gil filed a motion to enforce the temporary injunction and a motion for sanctions.
Applicable Law and Standard of Review
"To obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must plead and prove three specific elements: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim." Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). "Whether to grant or deny a temporary injunction is within the trial court's sound discretion." Id.
Discussion
Perez and Acclaim argue the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the temporary injunction because Gil failed to establish that he does not have an adequate remedy at law. We agree.
"An injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard." Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. Therefore, as a general rule, "a court will not enforce contractual rights by injunction, because a party can rarely establish an irreparable injury and an inadequate legal remedy when damages for breach of contract are available." Id. at 211.
Here, the trial court expressly found that Gil's "business will be irreparably damaged due to loss of collectible earned revenue, which is difficult to quantify, and from which [Gil] will, in all likelihood, be unable to recover, if [a] temporary injunction is not issued against [Acclaim and Perez]." However, there is not a shred of evidence to support either finding. "[T]o rule without supporting evidence" constitutes an abuse of discretion. Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1998).
Conclusion
Because the trial court abused its discretion in finding an irreparable injury without supporting evidence, we reverse the trial court's order, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In light of our holding, we deny Gil's motion to enforce the temporary injunction and for sanctions.