Opinion
05-22-01241-CV
04-27-2023
ARLENE PEREZ-MERINO, Appellant v. TREND PHYSICIANS GROUP, INC. AND TREND CLINICS, LLC, Appellees
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-05597
ORDER
KEN MOLBERG, JUSTICE
On March 28, 2023, we ordered the trial court to make written findings concerning documents appellant asserted, in a motion to supplement the record, she had submitted ex parte to the trial court prior to judgment. The motion to supplement suggested the documents would be necessary to determine the propriety of the trial court's rulings being challenged on appeal.
Because an appellate court's review of the propriety of trial court rulings is limited to a review of the documents and evidence considered by the trial court, we asked the trial court to make findings whether it (1) received documents submitted by appellant ex parte; (2) retained the documents; and (3) considered the documents in the challenged rulings. See AAA Navi Corp. v. Parrot-Ice Drink Prod. of Am. Inc., 119 S.W.3d 401, 403 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2003, no pet.). The trial court signed its findings on April 11, 2023, and the findings were included in a supplemental clerk's record filed April 12, 2023. Appellant objected in the trial court to the findings and subsequently filed in the trial court a motion for reconsideration. The trial court's website, however, does not reflect either has been set for hearing or determined by the court.
Although the trial court did not specifically state whether it received documents submitted by appellant ex parte, it made the following findings:
1. The Court did not receive a log of the documents that the Court of Appeals has been provided, and therefore cannot know whether the documents provided to the Court of Appeals were the same documents submitted to this Court.
2. The Court is without sufficient memory to determine . . . how the documents were received (i.e. the Court cannot . . . recall if the documents were filed correctly in compliance with the rules of procedure.)
3. More specifically, if Appellant failed to comply with the requirements of Tex.R.Civ.P. 76a regarding the sealing of documents, then the Court did not accept documents that were to be submitted in camera but not properly filed with the clerk and the court.
4. The Court did not retain any documents that were physically delivered to the chambers in Court but not properly filed with the Court.
5. The Court concluded that the documents were not a part of the admissible evidence that could be used in the matter and, therefore, did not consider such documents.
We ADOPT the findings as reproduced above and, having deferred ruling on appellant's motion to supplement the record pending the filing of the trial court's findings, DENY the motion. See AAAA Navi, 119 S.W.3d at 403.