HCA Lawyers for HCA Healthcare Inc: Conferring for the First Time Since Case Filed, Oct. 18, 2022


Letter Response

Originally Published:  Jan 19, 2023 | Republished: Jan 20, 2023

January 19, 2023

Mr. Hamel

Thank you for noticing that you are conferring for the first time in 3 months.

Summary of motion:

I have reviewed my first amended motion and note the key arguments raised therein for sanctions include, but are not exhaustive or restated fully for brevity.

As with your latest  email, it includes citing chapter 10 and rule 13 e.g., bad faith;

(i)               Failure to waive service…not conferring or communicating…for the purposes of delay

(ii)              Filing a fraudulent and retaliatory counterclaim…for the purposes of delay…

(iii)          Violating rule 193.7.

(iv)           Violating rule 194.2, which I retracted as noticed to the court and HCA/HCA Lawyers. (I can amend the motion to remove this before the scheduled hearing).

(v)             Lawyer as a witness…(lawyer-witness doctrine).

(vi)           Judicial donations to only Judge Reeder in 2022 by Serpe Andrews…(appearance of bias/conflict).

(vii)        Plea in abatement…the hearing on Jan. 9 should never have taken place as your claims were soaked in defamation…

And post-denial of your application for a temporary injunction – where you had nobody there as witnesses, and provided one new case cite, which was a defamation/slander/libel case – you have advised  you intend to pursue the counterclaim (email Jan. 13).

Requested relief:

In my first amended motion I requested non-monetary relief in the form of bar referral of one Partner and lawyer with many decades of experience, Ms. Nicole Andrews.

That stated, at the time of filing I did not wish for  the new associate to be referred and/or sanctioned by the State Bar of Texas, namely Ms. Madison Addicks.

Furthermore, I requested the video surveillance footage from Kingwood Hospital, which HCA have intentionally refused to provide, nor the names of personnel, doctors, staff, security and similar. I have now requested those separately.

Your request or consequences, if denied:

It would appear you wish to challenge my sanctions motion above in a sweeping reference to general laws and rules (10 and 13). Respectfully, I cannot possibly answer nor confer about the substance of my motion and hearing, with such a broad request.

Secondly, you  wish to maintain a baseless counterclaim, despite the temporary injunction being denied, which you are massaging is ‘not based on the merits’. Verbiage aside, I disagree.

Furthermore, accommodating your email from Friday, it hamstrings you from discussing anything of value with a non-prisoner.

That stated, I am transparent and direct. If you truly wish to confer, you’ll have to breakdown the above summary of my motion and explain your basis for relying upon 10 and 13. Certainly, I cannot currently see a valid argument which would allow me to reconsider my motion, and when you wish to maintain the counterclaim.


I have provided an opportunity for you to continue the conversation. However, if you wish to pursue with monetary sanctions (attorney fees), I shall be amending my motion to include monetary relief available to pro se litigants.


Mark Burke

Email from HCA Lawyers

Originally Published:  Jan. 19, 2023 | Republished: Jan. 19, 2023

Mr. Burke

Please let this correspondence serve as a request for conference regarding your motion for sanctions (“Motion”) currently set for oral hearing on January 30, 2023.

Having reviewed the Motion, it is our position that it has been filed in contravention of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 10.001 and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13 in that the claims and legal contentions contained therein are not warranted by existing law or by nonfrivolous argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law as well as that the Motion was filed for the improper purpose of harassment and to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

Accordingly, please advise whether you will be withdrawing your Motion and passing the January 30th hearing.

Failing that, please be advised that Defendants intend to seek sanctions for your violations of TCPRC Rule 10.001 and TRCP 13 including, but not limited to, reasonable and necessary attorneys fees incurred in responding to your improper and frivolous motion as well as any and all other relief available pursuant to TCPRC 10.002.

Please advise in writing whether you intend to withdraw the Motion and cancel the hearing.

If we do not hear from you by close of business on Friday January 20, 2023, we will assume that you intend to move forward with the Motion and will respond accordingly.


Ben Hamel

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like