Preview
DONNA LASKER, INDIVIDUALLY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE §
ESTATE OF LOIS LEE, DECEASED; §
and RAY A. LEE, AS WRONGFUL §
DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF LOIS LEE, §
DECEASED §
§
VS. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
REGENCY IHS OF SPRING, LLC D/B/A §
THE WOODLANDS NURSING AND §
REHABILITATION CENTER; BHARAT §
LATTHE, M.D.; TARESA WAGNER, §
NP, and RUDO SHOKO, NP § 189 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, Defendants, Bharat Latthe, M.D. and Taresa Wagner, NP, in the above-
before counsel for nts have begun voir
dire examination of the jury panel and before the receipt of any evidence, make and file this their
Motion in Limine, and would respectfully show the Court the following:
Defendants are requesting the Court to enter an Order instructing the Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff’s counsel and the Plaintiff’s witnesses to refrain from discussing, mentioning,
suggesting or in any way alluding to the matters set forth herein in front of or in the presence of
the jury without first asking to approach the bench with counsel for the Defendants to discuss the
introduction of such evidence outside the presence of the prospective jurors or the jury selected
in this case.
II.
This Motion includes the offering of documentary evidence, oral examination of
witnesses, voir dire, opening statement, final argument, and any other opportunities for
646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS
Plaintiff’s counsel, the Plaintiff, or the Plaintiff’s witnesses to present in any manner, directly or
indirectly, the matters set forth herein.
III.
The matters set forth herein are inadmissible because they are irrelevant to the material
issues in the trial of this case. If they are relevant that would be calculated to prejudice the jury
weigh the probative value of the evidence if heard by the jury.
Should any of the matters set forth herein be presented to the jury, either directly or
indirectly, without a prior ruling by the Court on the admissibility of such evidence outside the
presence of such jury, your Defendants will make a motion for mistrial and request that another
jury be impaneled to hear the case without such prejudicial evidence or questioning presented to
the trier of facts.
GRANTED DENIED
That counsel refrain from pr the effect “tha
condition would not result except from Bharat Latthe, M.D.’s and/or Taresa
Wagner, NP’s negligence” during the voir dire examination of the jury until the
GRANTED DENIED
If any settlement offer
GRANTED DENIED
GRANTED DENIED
646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 2
GRANTED DENIED
Any demands or request before the jury for matters found or contained in the
Defendants’ files, briefcases, exhibits, posters, video equipment, tapes, visual
aids, projectors, or other demonstrative evidence, or any demands or request for
GRANTED DENIED
Any request, demand or suggestion of the need for, or the possibility of
stipulations or agreements with defense counsel during the course of the trial or in
the presence of the jury.
GRANTED DENIED
That this motion has been filed for the relief sought herein or that the court
GRANTED DENIED
The circumstances under which attorneys for Defendants were retained or
employed, or the length of time Defendants have known its attorney, or when they
first contacted or communicated with its attorneys, or any other such question
intended to imply the existence of insurance coverage in this case.
GRANTED DENIED
other criticisms of
Defendants, Bharat Latthe, M.D. and Taresa Wagner, NP, except as relevant to
iff’s Operative Petition.
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move the Court to instruct counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s witnesses,
and Plaintiff to refrain from mentioning or divulging, directly or indirectly, the
fact that Defendants may be covered by some form of liability insurance with
respect to the incident in question, or the reason that such fact is entirely
immaterial to any issue in this case, and any mention or inference thereof, directly
or indirectly, would be extremely ha l to Defendants. Page v.
Texas Co. v. Betterton
646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 3
M. J. Construction Company v. Deatherage
Further, now that attention has been called to this matter in advance by
Defendants’ Motion in Limine, if any such reference is made, itcan only be for
ng the jury of the existence of liability insurance.
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants further specifically move the Court to instruct counsel for Plaintiff to
refrain during voir dire examination from inquiring of any juror or jurors as to any
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants further specifically move the Court to instruct counsel for Plaintiff to
refrain from interrogating the jury panel as to whether any member would answer
an issue on damages in accordance with the evidence regardless of who pays the
damages or when they will pay, or whether they will ever be paid, or any similar
version of such inquiry, for the reason that the same improperly injects the
implication of liability insurance into the suit, and Defendants further move the
Court to instruct Plaintiff’s counsel not to make any such reference in jury
argument of similar import. Griffith v. Casteel, 313 S.W. 2d 149 (Tex. Civ. App.
-- Houston 1958, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Hurley v. McMillan, 268 S.W. 2d 229 (Tex.
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move the Court to instruct counsel for the Plaintiff to refrain from
any other lawsuit or claims to which they may have been a party, or inquiring
whether they have ever been sued for malpractice, or have been the subject of
TMB complaints, or making a similar inquiry for the reason that the same is
irrelevant and immaterial to any issues in this case, and is prejudicial to these
Defendants. Alternatively, even if such inquiry were relevant, which it is not, the
probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of
prejudice to the Defendants, T 403, and would also serve to
improperly inject liability insurance into the case. T
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move the Court to instruct Plaintiff’s counsel to refrain from
questioning any expert witnesses called by these Defendants concerning the
identity of its professional liability insurance carrier, whether they had any feeling
646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 4
or belief that any adverse verdict against these Defendants would affect its
malpractice insurance rates. In Mendoza v. Varon, 563 S.W. 2d 646 (Tex. Civ.
App. -- Dallas 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the Court refused to permit Plaintiff to
make this inquiry of Defendants’ expert witness. Distinguishing the case from
Barton Plumbing Co. v. Johnson, 285 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Galveston
1955, writ ref’d), where an expert medical
of Defendants’ automobile liability insurance carrier, the Court in stated
“In the present case, however, th ect interest in
the outcome of the litigation, as would an agent, owner or
employee of the Defendants’ insurer. While itis true that a large
probably affect the insurance
rates of other physicians, the interest is remote and any proof of
bias based upon that interest is outweighed by the prejudice by
informing the jury of the De
Any inquiry by Plaintiff’s counsel about liability insurance would be highly
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move the Court to instruct Plaint
the presence of the jury, or read from a l article, or text
of any kind without first having established the same as a reliable authority,
pursuant to T
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move the Court to instruct Plaintiff’s counsel to refrain from
commenting on Defendants’ failure to call any witness to testify when the witness
is equally available to both parties in the case.
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move the Court to instruct Plaintiff’s counsel to refrain from referring
to defense counsel, or any member of its firm, as one who regularly represents
medical malpractice actions.
GRANTED DENIED
646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 5
That counsel for Plaintiff not argue to or advise the jury about jury verdicts in
other cases and/or counties for the reason that same is irrelevant to the issues in
to inflame and prejudice the jury.
GRANTED DENIED
Whether there was any investigation of the incident made the basis of this suit by
an insurance adjuster, agent or similar terms, or whether any party is or is not
Rhoden v. Booth
GRANTED DENIED
That counsel not inform the jury panel of what a prospective juror says when
GRANTED DENIED
That the Plaintiff is a “little poor man or little poor woman,”
Limestone Prod. Co., 255 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Waco 1953, writ ref’d
n.r.e.), or in any manner call attention to the difference in financial ability of the
Texas & N.O. Co. v. Lide, 117 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Waco 1938,
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move the Court to instruct th Plaintiff’s counsel
from the calling of expert witnesses or fact witnesses other than those designated
as trial witnesses in its written discovery responses.
GRANTED DENIED
From mentioning, suggesting, or inquiring about any lawsuits or other types of
claims, accusations, charges, inquiries, or investigations, which have in the past
been filed or made or conducted or presently pending, against Defendants or any
employees, agents, or representatives of Defendants, who may be called by any
party to testify in this suit for the reason that such matters would be wholly
irrelevant to any issue in this case and would be mentioned to the jury solely for
the purpose of prejudicing the jury by the existence of collateral matters, the
merits of which would not possibly be litigated in this lawsuit. The existence of
any such suits, claims or accusations would be meaningless, irrelevant, and
immaterial to any issue in this case, and the allegations of claimants in such suits
would be bald hearsay and, accordingly, such matters would be referred to only
646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 6
for the purpose of prejudicing a jury rather than bringing forth admissible
evidence.
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move the Court to instruct counsel for Plaintiff to refrain during voir
dire examination from mentioning, in any way, the alleged liability insurance
crisis, medical malpractice crisis, tort reform or similar questions or mention of
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants request the Court to instruct Plaintiff, counsel for Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff’s witnesses not to criticize Bharat Latthe, M.D.’s and/or Taresa Wagner,
NP’s medical care and treatment of Plaintif
laid with an expert witness.
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move this Court to preclude the admission of any evidence to
testimony whatsoever regarding medical ethics promulgated by the American
Medical Association or a on, or any other medical
issue in this case and its probative value is substantiall
prejudicial effect because these documents and materials do not establish and are
er standard of care.
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move this Court to restrict Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel, or any
witness called on behalf of Plaintiff to refrain from mentioning or alluding to any
ny insurance carrier to any witness in this lawsuit.
GRANTED DENIED
Defendants move this Court to prohibit Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel, or any
witness called on behalf of Plaintiff from mentioning or alluding to any
convictions and/or arrests of any witnesses in this case as none have been
GRANTED DENIED
646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 7
30. Defendants request that Plaintiff be prevented from discussing or alluding to the
“agency” or other vicarious relationship between Defendants and Thompson’s
Answering Service until the proper elements and predicate of the vicarious
relationship has been properly presented. “Before the court rules on the law
applicable to this case, any statement of the law other than regarding the burden
of proof and the basic legal definitions counsel believe to be applicable. Texas
law does not presume agency, and the pa
IRA Res., Inc. v. Griego
, No. 09-15-00016-CV, 2016 WL 7473855, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont
GRANTED DENIED
____________________________________
RESIDING
646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 8
Preview
DONNA LASKER, INDIVIDUALLY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE § ESTATE OF LOIS LEE, DECEASED; § and RAY A. LEE, AS WRONGFUL § DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF LOIS LEE, § DECEASED § § VS. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § REGENCY IHS OF SPRING, LLC D/B/A § THE WOODLANDS NURSING AND § REHABILITATION CENTER; BHARAT § LATTHE, M.D.; TARESA WAGNER, § NP, and RUDO SHOKO, NP § 189 JUDICIAL DISTRICT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, Defendants, Bharat Latthe, M.D. and Taresa Wagner, NP, in the above- before counsel for nts have begun voir dire examination of the jury panel and before the receipt of any evidence, make and file this their Motion in Limine, and would respectfully show the Court the following: Defendants are requesting the Court to enter an Order instructing the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s counsel and the Plaintiff’s witnesses to refrain from discussing, mentioning, suggesting or in any way alluding to the matters set forth herein in front of or in the presence of the jury without first asking to approach the bench with counsel for the Defendants to discuss the introduction of such evidence outside the presence of the prospective jurors or the jury selected in this case. II. This Motion includes the offering of documentary evidence, oral examination of witnesses, voir dire, opening statement, final argument, and any other opportunities for 646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS Plaintiff’s counsel, the Plaintiff, or the Plaintiff’s witnesses to present in any manner, directly or indirectly, the matters set forth herein. III. The matters set forth herein are inadmissible because they are irrelevant to the material issues in the trial of this case. If they are relevant that would be calculated to prejudice the jury weigh the probative value of the evidence if heard by the jury. Should any of the matters set forth herein be presented to the jury, either directly or indirectly, without a prior ruling by the Court on the admissibility of such evidence outside the presence of such jury, your Defendants will make a motion for mistrial and request that another jury be impaneled to hear the case without such prejudicial evidence or questioning presented to the trier of facts. GRANTED DENIED That counsel refrain from pr the effect “tha condition would not result except from Bharat Latthe, M.D.’s and/or Taresa Wagner, NP’s negligence” during the voir dire examination of the jury until the GRANTED DENIED If any settlement offer GRANTED DENIED GRANTED DENIED 646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 2 GRANTED DENIED Any demands or request before the jury for matters found or contained in the Defendants’ files, briefcases, exhibits, posters, video equipment, tapes, visual aids, projectors, or other demonstrative evidence, or any demands or request for GRANTED DENIED Any request, demand or suggestion of the need for, or the possibility of stipulations or agreements with defense counsel during the course of the trial or in the presence of the jury. GRANTED DENIED That this motion has been filed for the relief sought herein or that the court GRANTED DENIED The circumstances under which attorneys for Defendants were retained or employed, or the length of time Defendants have known its attorney, or when they first contacted or communicated with its attorneys, or any other such question intended to imply the existence of insurance coverage in this case. GRANTED DENIED other criticisms of Defendants, Bharat Latthe, M.D. and Taresa Wagner, NP, except as relevant to iff’s Operative Petition. GRANTED DENIED Defendants move the Court to instruct counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s witnesses, and Plaintiff to refrain from mentioning or divulging, directly or indirectly, the fact that Defendants may be covered by some form of liability insurance with respect to the incident in question, or the reason that such fact is entirely immaterial to any issue in this case, and any mention or inference thereof, directly or indirectly, would be extremely ha l to Defendants. Page v. Texas Co. v. Betterton 646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 3 M. J. Construction Company v. Deatherage Further, now that attention has been called to this matter in advance by Defendants’ Motion in Limine, if any such reference is made, itcan only be for ng the jury of the existence of liability insurance. GRANTED DENIED Defendants further specifically move the Court to instruct counsel for Plaintiff to refrain during voir dire examination from inquiring of any juror or jurors as to any GRANTED DENIED Defendants further specifically move the Court to instruct counsel for Plaintiff to refrain from interrogating the jury panel as to whether any member would answer an issue on damages in accordance with the evidence regardless of who pays the damages or when they will pay, or whether they will ever be paid, or any similar version of such inquiry, for the reason that the same improperly injects the implication of liability insurance into the suit, and Defendants further move the Court to instruct Plaintiff’s counsel not to make any such reference in jury argument of similar import. Griffith v. Casteel, 313 S.W. 2d 149 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Houston 1958, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Hurley v. McMillan, 268 S.W. 2d 229 (Tex. GRANTED DENIED Defendants move the Court to instruct counsel for the Plaintiff to refrain from any other lawsuit or claims to which they may have been a party, or inquiring whether they have ever been sued for malpractice, or have been the subject of TMB complaints, or making a similar inquiry for the reason that the same is irrelevant and immaterial to any issues in this case, and is prejudicial to these Defendants. Alternatively, even if such inquiry were relevant, which it is not, the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the Defendants, T 403, and would also serve to improperly inject liability insurance into the case. T GRANTED DENIED Defendants move the Court to instruct Plaintiff’s counsel to refrain from questioning any expert witnesses called by these Defendants concerning the identity of its professional liability insurance carrier, whether they had any feeling 646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 4 or belief that any adverse verdict against these Defendants would affect its malpractice insurance rates. In Mendoza v. Varon, 563 S.W. 2d 646 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Dallas 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the Court refused to permit Plaintiff to make this inquiry of Defendants’ expert witness. Distinguishing the case from Barton Plumbing Co. v. Johnson, 285 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Galveston 1955, writ ref’d), where an expert medical of Defendants’ automobile liability insurance carrier, the Court in stated “In the present case, however, th ect interest in the outcome of the litigation, as would an agent, owner or employee of the Defendants’ insurer. While itis true that a large probably affect the insurance rates of other physicians, the interest is remote and any proof of bias based upon that interest is outweighed by the prejudice by informing the jury of the De Any inquiry by Plaintiff’s counsel about liability insurance would be highly GRANTED DENIED Defendants move the Court to instruct Plaint the presence of the jury, or read from a l article, or text of any kind without first having established the same as a reliable authority, pursuant to T GRANTED DENIED Defendants move the Court to instruct Plaintiff’s counsel to refrain from commenting on Defendants’ failure to call any witness to testify when the witness is equally available to both parties in the case. GRANTED DENIED Defendants move the Court to instruct Plaintiff’s counsel to refrain from referring to defense counsel, or any member of its firm, as one who regularly represents medical malpractice actions. GRANTED DENIED 646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 5 That counsel for Plaintiff not argue to or advise the jury about jury verdicts in other cases and/or counties for the reason that same is irrelevant to the issues in to inflame and prejudice the jury. GRANTED DENIED Whether there was any investigation of the incident made the basis of this suit by an insurance adjuster, agent or similar terms, or whether any party is or is not Rhoden v. Booth GRANTED DENIED That counsel not inform the jury panel of what a prospective juror says when GRANTED DENIED That the Plaintiff is a “little poor man or little poor woman,” Limestone Prod. Co., 255 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Waco 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.), or in any manner call attention to the difference in financial ability of the Texas & N.O. Co. v. Lide, 117 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Waco 1938, GRANTED DENIED Defendants move the Court to instruct th Plaintiff’s counsel from the calling of expert witnesses or fact witnesses other than those designated as trial witnesses in its written discovery responses. GRANTED DENIED From mentioning, suggesting, or inquiring about any lawsuits or other types of claims, accusations, charges, inquiries, or investigations, which have in the past been filed or made or conducted or presently pending, against Defendants or any employees, agents, or representatives of Defendants, who may be called by any party to testify in this suit for the reason that such matters would be wholly irrelevant to any issue in this case and would be mentioned to the jury solely for the purpose of prejudicing the jury by the existence of collateral matters, the merits of which would not possibly be litigated in this lawsuit. The existence of any such suits, claims or accusations would be meaningless, irrelevant, and immaterial to any issue in this case, and the allegations of claimants in such suits would be bald hearsay and, accordingly, such matters would be referred to only 646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 6 for the purpose of prejudicing a jury rather than bringing forth admissible evidence. GRANTED DENIED Defendants move the Court to instruct counsel for Plaintiff to refrain during voir dire examination from mentioning, in any way, the alleged liability insurance crisis, medical malpractice crisis, tort reform or similar questions or mention of GRANTED DENIED Defendants request the Court to instruct Plaintiff, counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s witnesses not to criticize Bharat Latthe, M.D.’s and/or Taresa Wagner, NP’s medical care and treatment of Plaintif laid with an expert witness. GRANTED DENIED Defendants move this Court to preclude the admission of any evidence to testimony whatsoever regarding medical ethics promulgated by the American Medical Association or a on, or any other medical issue in this case and its probative value is substantiall prejudicial effect because these documents and materials do not establish and are er standard of care. GRANTED DENIED Defendants move this Court to restrict Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel, or any witness called on behalf of Plaintiff to refrain from mentioning or alluding to any ny insurance carrier to any witness in this lawsuit. GRANTED DENIED Defendants move this Court to prohibit Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel, or any witness called on behalf of Plaintiff from mentioning or alluding to any convictions and/or arrests of any witnesses in this case as none have been GRANTED DENIED 646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 7 30. Defendants request that Plaintiff be prevented from discussing or alluding to the “agency” or other vicarious relationship between Defendants and Thompson’s Answering Service until the proper elements and predicate of the vicarious relationship has been properly presented. “Before the court rules on the law applicable to this case, any statement of the law other than regarding the burden of proof and the basic legal definitions counsel believe to be applicable. Texas law does not presume agency, and the pa IRA Res., Inc. v. Griego , No. 09-15-00016-CV, 2016 WL 7473855, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont GRANTED DENIED ____________________________________ RESIDING 646800.1 PRE 0011700 21140 RGS 8