Texas Lawyer Madison J. Addicks of Serpe Andrews, PLLC Quizzed

Plaintiff Mark Burke (“Plaintiff”) in the above-styled and numbered cause requests that Counter-Plaintiff and Co-Counsel (“HCA Lawyer or HCA Lawyers”) for Defendant, KPH – Consolidation Inc., DBA HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood, a domestic For-Profit Corporation (“HCA”) Madison J. Addicks (“Addicks”);

(1)      answer the following requests for admissions separately and fully in writing under oath within 30 days of service, and;

(2)      serve its answers to these requests for admissions within the same time period to pro se Plaintiff.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 17th day of January, 2023.

__________________

Mark Burke
State of Texas / Pro Se

46 Kingwood Greens Dr
Kingwood, Texas 77339
Phone Number: (832) 781-6887
Fax: (866) 705-0576
Email(s):browserweb@gmail.com doctor@kingwooddr.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Plaintiff hereby certifies that I have not conferenced with Madison J. Addicks, HCA Lawyer and/or HCA Lawyers and/or HCA to potentially narrow down any scope of the RFA[s] as she has previously refused to discuss the case or provide adequate time to reply to procedural matters in this court as evidenced on the record.

Addicks has also stated on the record she prefers to answer written communications from pro se Plaintiff.

In compliance with this request, the Plaintiff now encloses RFA  and RFP which addresses Plaintiff’s meritorious Original Petition and Defendant’s baseless Counterclaim with Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunctions (denied).

The RFA and RFP’s are very specific, are not exempted by attorney immunity or privileges and so there should be no reason or excuse not to answer the on-point and direct questions within the required time allowed in law.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing request has been forwarded to:

Nicole G. Andrews
Madison J. Addicks
Serpe Andrews, PLLC
2929 Allen Pkwy
Suite 1600
Houston, TX
77019

by electronic filing notification and/or electronic mail and/or facsimile and/or certified mail, return receipt requested, this the 17^th day of January, 2023.

__________________

Mark Burke
State of Texas / Pro Se

MADISON J. ADDICKS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS INSTRUCTIONS

1. These Responses call for your personal and present knowledge.
2. If you cannot answer a particular RFA in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information to do so, please state so and answer to the extent possible, specifying and explaining your inability to answer the remainder and stating whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered portion.
3. You are also advised that you are under a duty to reasonably amend your responses if you obtain information on the basis of which:
4. You know the response made was incorrect or incomplete when made; or
5. You know the response, though correct and complete when made, is no longer true and complete, and the circumstances.
6. You are requested to provide a recent and valid image issued by an approved government agency with your response, for example, driving license, passport or similar with any redactions you deem compliant with the law, or in the alternative a headshot image, sworn, signed and dated by you under the penalty of perjury, that the image submitted matches your actual known likeness and identity.

DEFINITIONS

1. “Defendant”, “HCA”, “Counterclaim-Plaintiff”, “Counter-Plaintiff” refers to HCA Heathcare Inc., its subsidiaries and legal corporate entities, e.g. KPH-CONSOLIDATION INC (DBA HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD), and other related corporate entities, its agents, representatives, employees and any other entity or person acting on its behalf.
2. “Defendant”, “Co-Counsel”, “HCA Lawyer”, “HCA Lawyers”, “Counterclaim-Plaintiff”, “Counter-Plaintiff”, “You”, “Your(s)” refers to an attorney, its firm(s) and legal entities, e.g. Serpe Andrews, PLLC, and other related corporate entities, its agents, representatives, employees and any other entity or person acting on its behalf.
3. “Plaintiff”refers to the named pro se Plaintiff in the above-captioned suit.
4. “Burke v HCA“, refers to the above styled and captioned case as docketed on October 18, 2022, titled; “Plaintiffs Original Petition and Judy [sic] Demand”.
5. “Burke v HCA and HCA Lawyers” or “Counterclaim” refers to HCA’s “Original Counterclaim and Application for Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction” (denied) as filed on Nov. 23, 2022.
6. “Communication” or “communications” shall mean and refer to the transmission or exchange of information, either orally or in writing, and includes without limitation any conversation, letter, handwritten notes, memorandum, inter or intraoffice correspondence, electronic mail, text messages, or any other electronic transmission, telephone call, telegraph, telex telecopy, facsimile, cable, conference, tape recording, video recording, digital recording, discussion, or face-to-face communication.
7. The term “referring” or “relating” shall mean showing, disclosing, averring to, comprising, evidencing, constituting, or reviewing.
8. The singular and masculine form of any noun or pronoun includes the plural, the feminine, and the neuter.
9. The term “Patient File” or “Patient Information”;
10. means HCA’s patient documentation and information gathered during and after admittance to Kingwood Hospital Emergency Room, Kingwood Hospital, Kingwood Hospital South Wing, namely any files, whether kept in paper or electronic format, including but not limited to all documents, file jackets, file notes, claims diary or journal entries, log notes, handwritten notes, records of oral communications, communications, correspondence, photographs, diagrams, estimates, reports, recommendations, invoices, memoranda and drafts of documents regarding patient Mark Stephen Burke.
11. means the entire file(s), including all documents and information used for care and evaluation purposes even if you did not rely on such documents or information in order to make a decision regarding Plaintiffs health and care.
12. The term “Complaint” or “Spoilation letter(s)” means the Plaintiff’s complaint(s) before, during and after self-discharge on Saturday, August 13, 2022, whether verbally or in writing.
13. The term “Video Surveillance Footage” or “Video Footage” or “Video” means the entire video surveillance footage for the full period of Plaintiff’s stay at HCA Kingwood Hospital for the period identified in the Spoilation letters (Aug. 9-Aug. 13, 2022), including all photographs, video, reports, investigative documents and information used for analysis and evaluation purposes even if you did not rely on such documents or information in order to make a decision regarding Plaintiffs complaints per his post discharge Spoilation letters and HCA Healthcare’s responses.
14. The term “Gripe Site” refers to the website at kingwooddr.com, which is owned and operated by Plaintiff and which is the center of objection by HCA, HCA Lawyers, and included unlimited non-parties and entities.

NOTICE OF AUTHENTICATION

You are advised Plaintiff intends to use all requests for admissions (“RFA[s]”) and production  (“RFP[s]”) produced between the parties during the trial of the above-entitled and numbered cause, as entitled in law, and/or allowed by local and legal rules.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing and following is true and correct (Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 132.001).

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION RE PLAINTIFF’s ORIGINAL PETITION FOR MADISON JOHANNA ADDICKS  aka MADISON J. ADDICKS

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit your name is Madison J. Addicks and you are licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, and in Harris County District Court.

2. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you joined HCA Lawyers in Sept. 2022 as an ‘associate’.

3. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you recently passed the Bar exam and your State Bar of Bar Card Number: 24132017, with TX License Date: 10/17/2022.

4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit your resume, credentials and bibliography per your firm website at serpeandrews.com  is accurate.

See; https://www.serpeandrews.com/our-team/madison-j-addicks/, last visited Jan 16, 2023 and Exhibit “Serpe Andrew Team per Website as at Dec 8, 2022”, Bates No. SA012TEAM, filed onto docket on Dec. 27, 2022.

5. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit this is the first HCA lawsuit in Harris County District Court you have been assigned to as co-counsel with Partner Nicole G. Andrews, Exhibit “Serpe Andrew Team per Website as at Dec 8, 2022”, Bates No. SA002TEAM, filed onto docket on Dec. 27, 2022.

6. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you have read the following;

“Tex. R. Civ. P. 192 (“(f) Indemnity and insuring agreements. Except as otherwise provided by law, a party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any indemnity or insurance agreement under which any person may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment rendered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. Information concerning the indemnity or insurance agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial.”)”.

In conjunction with Exhibit “Email dated Fri., Jan 13, 2023 from HCA Lawyer Benjamin “Ben” Hamel”, and as co-Counsel, you admit to refusing to confirm HCA’s known indemnity and insurance agreement when requested per HCA’s initial disclosures, and which was subsequently questioned by Plaintiff via electronic communication on Dec. 28, 2022, (see RFA 7 below for transcribed copy of email), in relevant part;

“(iv)    Response to (7): How can you refuse to supply details of your liability insurance in the initial disclosures, including the response “if any” when the record and my responses show you have $5m per claim coverage via HCA’s own insurance company?”

7. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit HCA Lawyers entered into an ‘engagement letter’, ‘fee agreement’ or other similarly named contract in this case with your alleged client, HCA.

8. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit the following content of the email sent by HCA Lawyer Benjamin Hamel, an associate, was approved by you before he hit the send button on Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:45 AM.

“Mr. Burke,

1)        Regarding your December 28th email, to the extent you have any issue with our discovery responses or otherwise, you are welcome to raise those issues with the Court and we will provide written responses to the extent we are obligated to do so. However, we are not your attorneys and, as such, are neither willing nor able to advise you regarding the basis for our legal positions and/or the courses of action available to you in responding. To the extent that you require greater explanation I suggest you consult with an attorney.

2)        We will not provide any information outside of the processes outlined in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and expressly reserve the right to object and resist improper discovery requests as outlined therein. Should you feel this warrants a motion to compel that is certainly your prerogative.

3)        We will continue to prosecute our counterclaim because the denial of injunctive relief is not a merits determination. Once again, to the extent you require further explanation regarding this issue I would recommend you consult with an attorney.

4)        Finally, regarding all further correspondence, we will respond to correspondence which we are legally and ethically obligated to respond to. Examples of such correspondence include: scheduling matters; conferences regarding opposition or agreement on motions and other pleadings to the extent required by the Court’s local rules or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing notice of filings and hearing dates, again to the extent required by local rules or the TRCP. Examples of correspondence that we will not respond to include: unsolicited requests to explain or otherwise discuss the propriety of legal positions taken in advancement of our clients interests; requests for information outside of the procedures outlined in the Texas rules; and requests for legal advice or explanations of legal issues.

Regards, Ben”

And admit you have read the cited-to email by Benjamin Hamel dated Dec. 28, 2022 from Plaintiff;

“Top of the morn’ to y’all

Upon initial review of your submissions via e-serve I have the following questions, which are not exhaustive, but for the purposes of this email are suffice;

(i)        Why was Defendant’s response and objection to Initial Disclosures not e-filed as well as e-served so it may be addressed by my reply, and include the court?

(ii)       In Ms Andrews Dec. 27 response, she claimed the “office was closed” as reasoning why counsel for HCA did not respond to my email(s), including the Thursday, Dec. 22 early morning email questioning the sum and substance of the Initial Disclosures, which I find insincere. The reason I find Ms Andrew’s response insincere is because any vacation time, including office closures should be noticed to the court and the parties, and to avoid surprise. The court was open when you claim your office was closed. There was no notice to Plaintiff and the court your office was closed, so clearly that argument is unavailing.

(iii)     My original petition states at page 42, “Count IV, Stalking”, which is wholly related to Imposter Doctor, Dr. Aguilar. Under what non-frivolous argument could you possibly claim Chapter 74 protection for a Chapter 85 claim, namely relying upon the need for a mandated medical report to refuse supplying a response (Defendant’s Objection)? And furthermore, the fact that “Dr. Aguilar” is not listed in your Initial Disclosures and responses as an employee of HCA Healthcare Inc., under what premise is Plaintiff legally obliged to furnish an Expert Report regarding an “Imposter Doctor’s” visits?

(iv)      Response to (7): How can you refuse to supply details of your liability insurance in the initial disclosures, including the response “if any” when the record and my responses show you have $5m per claim coverage via HCA’s own insurance company?

In the abundance of caution, I also write to state on the record that I am extremely concerned about ongoing communications. In particular, since the date you filed your malicious counterclaim, Ms Madison Addicks and Ms Nicole Andrews have elected to directly respond to my emails, despite the fraudulent criminal assertions that I am “stalking and harassing”, including all employees of Serpe Andrews, PLLC,  and HCA, including affiliates, family et al.

As such, I question herein how you have not elected to add pro hac vice counsel on the court docket to allow for an independent lawyer to broker and respond to my emails and inquiries as you continue to pursue your stalking and harassment claims, including injunctive relief?

I certainly do not wish to be deemed a “threat” by Defendant(s) for conferring, asking questions and responding to filings via email. Since I did not make these outrageous and fraudulent allegations, the legal burden is on you.

Please let me know if you wish to continue responding to the above questions and future correspondence related to these legal proceeding. If you continue to respond directly, I will view this as Defendant(s) having admitted to filing a frivolous counterclaim and applications for injunctive relief.

If  you do not wish to respond directly going forward, silence is not a defense, so I anticipate a response on how you plan to timely address my questions and ability to confer, without prejudicing my case, my property and liberty, and/or causing further unnecessary delay.

Cheers, Mark Burke”

9. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit Benjamin Hamel is not an attorney of record, as listed on the court docket, and court-approved counsel includes only two lawyers; namely yourself, and law partner Nicole G. Andrews.

10. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you and/or your law firm have never reached out  or conferred with Plaintiff prior to filing any motion, counterclaim or hearing in this case.

11. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you never answered (iii) in the email dated Dec. 28, 2022 from plaintiff as transcribed above.

And admit you never answered the question as to ongoing representation, taking into considering the counterclaim, nor did you or your firm retain a third party to correspond with plaintiff.

12. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you have read the following section from the Texas Lawyer’s Creed;

“III. LAWYER TO LAWYER”

And admit this section includes ‘non-prisoners’ or ‘pro se’ litigants acting as their own lawyer.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RE DEFENDANT’s ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM WITH APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR MADISON JOHANNA ADDICKS  aka MADISON J. ADDICKS

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you approved filing a counterclaim against plaintiff requesting injunctive relief to prevent alleged ‘stalking’, ‘harassment’, and other claims as outlined in the counterclaim.

2. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit the counterclaim included claims related to your parents, Texas lawyer Jeffrey Addicks, and Texas Lawyer Sharon Addicks, RN, JD, CPHRM, CLNC, with home residence at 4801 Palm St, Bellaire, TX 7740.

And admit it is claimed, they also require immediate ‘protection’ from Plaintiff, e.g., “that immediate and irreparable harm will occur unless Burke is restrained immediately” (citing from denied proposed Temporary Injunction Order as submitted on Jan 10, 2023).

3. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you did not send or request any ‘take-down’ notices to Plaintiff regarding any content on his gripe site at kingwooddr.com related to you.

4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you did not file a police report claiming harassment, stalking or a formal complaint complaining of Plaintiff as outlined in your counterclaim and applications for injunctive relief.

5. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you have never physically met, seen, or verbally spoken to Plaintiff prior to filing of the counterclaim.

6. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you have never physically met, seen, or verbally spoken to Plaintiff after filing of the counterclaim.

7. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you have never received any direct, threatening correspondence from Plaintiff, be it letter, email, text message, phone call, or similar.

8. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you have never seen Plaintiff driving by your office, home, or aware of any instance where Plaintiff has physically ‘stalked’ you.

9. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit the counterclaim was filed the day after the Plaintiff’s original “Motion for Sanctions, to Disqualify Serpe Andrews PLLC, Nicole G. Andrews, and Madison J. Addicks and Order Release of Video Surveillance Footage to Plaintiff”, namely on Thursday, Nov. 24, 2022, the eve of Thanksgiving.

10. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you have read the following extract from the Texas Lawyer’s Creed;

“14.  I will not arbitrarily schedule a deposition, court appearance, or hearing until a good faith effort has been made to schedule it by agreement.”

And admit you and HCA Lawyers violated that creed by scheduling the “Original Counterclaim and Application for Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction” for a hearing on Jan. 9, 2023 without a good effort to schedule it by agreement, as y’all did not contact Plaintiff at all prior to submitting the counterclaim and notice of hearing as filed on Nov. 23, 2022.

11. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit you attended said hearing on Jan. 9, 2023 regarding the counterclaim and applications for injunctive relief.

And Admit;

The court verbally approved the application for a Temporary Injunction at this hearing.

12. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit on Jan. 10, 2023 HCA Lawyers prepared and submitted a Proposed Temporary Injunction, as docketed at 10:08 am.

And Admit;

It included the following language;

“The Court finds that, unless Burke is restrained now, HCA Kingwood and its retained counsel will be exposed to a material risk of physical harm.”.

And Admit;

The Proposed Order was subsequently denied.

And Admit;

This denial was a surprise.

And Admit;

You anticipated the order being signed, granting the injunction.

13. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Admit by remaining on this case as counsel of record, you are in fact in violation of the lawyer-witness rule and  Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 3.08(a), see; BP America Production Co. v. Zaffirini, 419 S.W.3d 485, 514 (Tex. App. 2013).

INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatories will be requested later.

MADISON J. ADDICKS

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION  INSTRUCTIONS

In producing documents responsive to these requests, you are instructed to redact any identifying information, such as name, tax identification number, social security number or driver’s license and to identify the clients or plaintiffs by number or initials to preserve any claims of privilege or confidentiality. However, you are instructed to leave relevant information intact.

The following requests seek material and relevant evidence necessary to demonstrate the true value of Plaintiff’s claims versus the harassing and baseless counterclaim and applications for injunctive relief, which would be denied, however, HCA and HCA Lawyers seek to maintain the frivolous counterclaim, as confirmed by HCA Lawyers’ email on Friday, Jan. 13, 2023.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FOR MADISON JOHANNA ADDICKS  aka MADISON J. ADDICKS

1. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Produce a copy of your resume and bibliography, with supporting evidence of any accreditations, for example, university degree(s) in Marketing and Journalism, J.D., State Bar of Texas certificate of good standing, and similar.

2. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Produce supporting evidence related to Tulane’s First Amendment Clinic and those cases in which you participated, and your role therein, as identified on your website resume, which states, in relevant part; “Madison served as a Student Attorney for Tulane’s First Amendment Clinic, where she represented a variety of clients in freedom of speech and expression matters.”.

3. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Produce a copy of your business and personal emails, mobile phone, business and home phone records pertaining to any conversation about Plaintiff with your parents, family members, partner(s), boyfriends, girlfriends, or any other individual, related to the counterclaim and applications for temporary and permanent injunctions.

4. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Produce all your evidence to support the claim made regarding “physical harm” in the prepared Temporary Injunction, as submitted on your behalf to the court;

“The Court finds that, unless Burke is restrained now, HCA Kingwood and its retained counsel will be exposed to a material risk of physical harm.”.

5. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Produce exhibits presented in support of your applications for injunctive relief at the Jan. 9, 2023 hearing before Judge Lauren Reeder – with metadata intact – and which Plaintiff did not attend, as forewarned.

6. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Produce the ‘engagement letter’, ‘fee agreement’ or other similarly named contract – with original metadata intact – in this case with your alleged client, HCA, and which is not privileged nor exempt from production.

And Produce the engagement letter, fee agreement or other similarly named contract – with original metadata intact – in this case with your alleged client(s), your parents, namely Jeffery and Sharon Addicks.

And Produce the ‘engagement letter’, ‘fee agreement’ or other similarly named contract – with original metadata intact – in this case with your alleged client(s), namely the employees, directors, officers, representatives, current and former attorneys, affiliates, entities and others as defined in your counterclaim and applications for injunctive relief who required and entered into such legal advice and requested protection.

7. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Produce a letter, email or notice – with original metadata intact – confirming HCA Lawyers, trading as Serpe Andrews, PLLC, office in Houston was “closed” for what period of time over Thanksgiving period in November 2022.

8. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Produce a letter, email and/or notice – with original metadata intact – confirming HCA Lawyers, trading as Serpe Andrews, PLLC, office in Houston was “closed” for what period of time over the Christmas – New Year period in December/January 2022.

[End]