DEFENDANT HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND
Originally Published: Nov 18, 2022 | Republished: Nov 19, 2022
Defendant, HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), files this Original Answer and Jury Demand and respectfully shows the Court as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
1. As authorized by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant enters a general denial of matters pled by Plaintiff and requests that the Court requires Plaintiff to prove his charges and allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, as required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas.
DISCOVERY
2. Defendant requests that discovery in this case be conducted under Level 3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3. Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant respectfully demands trial by jury; the requisite fee for same has been paid.
PLEADINGS AND AMENDMENT THEREOF
4. Defendant respectfully reserves the right to file an amended Answer in this case in the matter authorized by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 63 and 66.
RULE 193.7 NOTICE
5. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant hereby gives actual notice to Plaintiff that any and all documents produced in response to written discovery may be used as evidence in this case; and, that any such materials may be used as evidence against the party producing the document at any pretrial proceeding and/or at the trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating the document and/or materials produced in discovery.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD, prays that, upon final hearing, judgment be entered that Plaintiff takes nothing and that Defendant be dismissed with its costs.
Respectfully submitted,
SERPE ANDREWS, PLLC
By: /S/ Nicole G. Andrews
Nicole Andrews
Texas Bar No. 00792335
nandrews@serpeandrews.com
Madison J. Addicks
Texas Bar No. 24132017
maddicks@serpeandrews.com
America Tower
2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77019
(713) 452-4400 – Telephone
(713) 452-4499 – Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This will certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the 17th day of November 2022.
/s/ Nicole G. Andrews
Nicole G. Andrews
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Priscilla Martinez on behalf of Nicole Andrews Bar No. 792335
pmartinez@serpeandrews.com Envelope ID: 70281233
Status as of 11/17/2022 3:47 PM CST
Case Contacts
Mark Burke
browserweb@gmail.com
11/17/2022 2:47:27 PM
SENT
Nicole G.Andrews
nandrews@serpeandrews.com
11/17/2022 2:47:27 PM
SENT
Madison Addicks
maddicks@serpeandrews.com
11/17/2022 2:47:27 PM
SENT
Amanda Johnson
ajohnson@serpeandrews.com
11/17/2022 2:47:27 PM
SENT
Priscilla Martinez
pmartinez@serpeandrews.com
11/17/2022 2:47:27 PM
SENT
“Bruce’s discharge was authorized by an imposter who was neither a psychiatrist nor a physician. The “doctor” was eventually convicted and imprisoned for perjury and practicing medicine without a license.” – Bruce v. Estelle, 536 F.2d 1051, 1053 (5th Cir. 1976)
Madison joined Serpe Andrews as an associate in September 2022.
Her primary practice area is civil litigation, concentrating in medical malpractice litigation.
After graduating magna cum laude from the University of Alabama with a B.S. in Marketing and a B.A. in Journalism, Madison earned her J.D. from Tulane University Law School in May 2022.
During her time in law school, 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.
Further, she was the Managing Editor of the Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, where she was published in the 2022 Journal, and Vice President of the Student Federal Bar Association.
With this experience, she is prepared to work with her clients on a broad range of civil matters.
JEFFERY ADDICKS, American Lawyer, Partner of HAYS, McCONN, PRICE & PICKERING, specializing in the field of General Civil and Personal Injury Trial Practice. Insurance, Banking, and Finance, Corporate, Estate Planning, Family, Probate, Real Estate and Taxation and ERISA.
Background
Addicks, Jeffery Allen was born on April 18, 1959 in Houston, Texas, United States. Son of Leonard Earl and Josephine Ida (Weiss) Addicks.
Education
University of Texas at Austin (Bachelor of Science, 1983). South Texas College of Law (Juris Doctor, 1988). Phi Delta Phi. Director, Board of Advocates, 1987 National Insurance Law Moot Court Competition, Hartford, Connecticut, First Place, Best Brief.
1988 National Administrative Law Moot Court Competition, Dayton, Ohio, First Place, Best Brief.
Career
Working as a partner of HAYS, McCONN, PRICE & PICKERING. Admitted to the bar, 1988, Texas. 1989, United States. District Court, Southern District of Texas.
Achievements
Bar: Texas 1988, United States District Court (southern district) Texas 1989, United States District Court (eastern district) Texas 1991, United States Court Appeals (5th circuit) 1991.
Membership
Member Bellaire (Texas) Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, since 1992. Member Leadership Houston, 1984-1985. Deacon Faith Lutheran Church, Bellaire, since 1992.
Member Houston Bar Association, Texas Young Lawyers, Houston Young Lawyers, Defense Research Institute (committee on products liability since 1990), State Bar Texas, Phi Delta Phi.
Interests
Sports, politics, the arts.
Connections
Married Sharon Kay Lowman, July 7, 1990. Children: Jessica Alaine, Allison Mariel, Madison Johanna.
Father:
Leonard Earl Addicks
Mother:
Josephine Ida (Weiss) Addicks
Spouse:
Sharon Kay Lowman
child:
Jessica Alaine Addicks
child:
Allison Mariel Addicks
child:
Madison Johanna Addicks
April 05, 2019 at 12:23 PM
Brewer Leasing of Odessa sued its former lawyers and their firms, one of which was acquired by LeClairRyan, over a 2006 wrongful death suit.
A Texas truck leasing company is suing LeClairRyan and two lawyers from other firms for $29 million over a 2006 wrongful death case handled in part by Houston firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, which LeClairRyan acquired in 2014.
Brewer Leasing, an Odessa company, filed its petition Thursday in state district court in Harris County. Brewer alleges negligence by Hays McConn and lawyer Michael S. Hays, as well as lawyer George T. Jackson and his former firm.
LeClairRyan, reached for comment Thursday, noted that it was not involved in the original case.
According to the original petition in the 2006 suit, Brewer Leasing owned or leased a tractor-trailer involved in the accident that led to the wrongful death claims.
Brewer alleges the lawyers failed to timely provide toxicology information to all parties in the wrongful death case, and because of that, Brewer is facing a $29 million judgment. The toxicology results were revealed in an insurance-related legal proceeding, the petition alleged. So, with that evidence at hand, a judge presiding over a retrial of the wrongful death suit signed the $29 million judgment against Brewer, the petition said.
“We really have nothing to do with this one,” Lori Thompson, general counsel at LeClairRyan in Roanoke, Virginia, said about allegations in Brewer Leasing v. Jackson.
LeClairRyan merged with Houston’s Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering in 2014, and Thompson said any work Hays did in the litigation was before the merger.
“We have no direct information about this matter whatsoever, because the claim predates the Hays McConn/LeClairRyan combination, so I cannot imagine any circumstance under which we would have responsibility,” Thompson said.
Hays is now a solo practitioner in Houston. Reached Thursday, he declined to comment on the allegations because he had not seen the petition.
Jackson, formerly of Houston’s Burck, Lapidus & Lanza, is now a partner in Bush + Ramirez in Houston. He did not immediately return a call for comment Thursday.
Burck Lapidus is also named as a defendant, but according to the petition, that firm dissolved in 2017. Mark Lapidus, who is still listed as its president and is now a partner in Lapidus Knudsen in Houston, did not immediately return a call seeking a comment.
In the petition in Brewer Leasing v. Jackson, the plaintiff alleges Jackson, then at Burck Lapidus, and Hays, then at Hays McConn, represented Brewer in the underlying wrongful death suit, which involved several defendants.
Brewer Leasing alleges the lawyers “sought to lessen the impact of the claim against Brewer Leasing and its insurance carrier by negligently concealing, failing to reveal, and thereafter negligently failing to disclose their previous errors” in connection with the cocaine level of a tractor-trailer driver involved in the fatal accident.
The plaintiff alleges the driver “admitted fault at the scene and was almost universally found to be 100 percent at fault in causing the traffic wreck” that caused the death of one woman and injuries to several others.
The family and estate of the woman who was killed in the accident were awarded about $8.8 million in damages at a trial “In which Jackson (and Hays) were successful in excluding any proof of cocaine use,” the petition said.
However, Brewer Leasing claims that in a subsequent insurance-related lawsuit, the “damaging” toxicology report was disclosed, and correspondence written by Hays and Jackson in February 2007 about those results “conclusively proves” that they knew about the precise cocaine level in the report, but failed to reveal it in years of litigation that followed. The plaintiff alleges the lawyers in fact “told the court in a formal legal motion to exclude evidence that the level had not been determined.”
After the original verdict was set aside, the litigation was retried with only Brewer Leasing as a defendant. A jury returned a verdict lodging about $9 million in actual damages and $20 million in punitive damages against Brewer Leasing. The judge in that suit entered the $29 million judgment, the petition said.
Brewer Leasing is seeking about $29 million in damages, along with interest and costs, from the defendants.
The plaintiff’s attorney, solo practitioner George W. Long in Odessa, declined to comment.
“This is a matter that I actually view as rather private,” he said.
Harris County District Court Cases
201924228 – BREWER LEASING INC vs. JACKSON, GEORGE T
201924228A – BREWER LEASING INC vs. HAYS, MICHAEL
A general denial says that the defendant disagrees overall with the plaintiff’s claims. Instead of denying any specific allegation, the plaintiff denies everything alleged in the petition.
Such a denial ensures that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.
While this practice does not occur in Federal Court, in Texas State Court, a general denial should always be part of an answer to a plaintiff’s petition.
If the plaintiff later changes his pleading, the original denial will still apply to any issues consequently established by the plaintiff.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 92.
Rule 92. General Denial (1985) A general denial of matters pleaded by the adverse party which are not required to be denied under oath, shall be sufficient to put the same in issue.
Affirmative defenses are reasons the defendant gives for why a plaintiff should not win.
An affirmative defense can help you win the lawsuit even if what the plaintiff says is true.
In Texas, defendants must assert affirmative defenses in their Answer at the beginning of their case.
Failure to do so may prevent the defendant from using the defenses later.
To do more research, look up these cases:
Texas Beef Cattle Co. vs. Green, 921 S.W. 2d 203 (Tex. 1996),
An affirmative defense does not seek to defend by merely denying the plaintiff’s claims, but rather seeks to establish “an independent reason why the plaintiff should not recover.” 2 ROY W. McDONALD, TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE § 9:44, at 378 (1992).
and
Phillips vs. Phillips, 820 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. 1992).
As a general rule, an affirmative defense must be pleaded or it is waived. Tex.R.Civ.P. 94.
doctor
