Answer: JUANA LAGUNA, REGINO GONZALEZ, Sr., Joanna Gonzalez Acevedo VS. RAY FULP, III, DO, RAY FULP ORTHOPEDICS, PA, MARIA CAMACHO, MD, FRANCISCO TORRES, MD, ROBERT FOUNTILA, DO, RADIOLOGY & IMAGING OF SOUTH TEXAS, LLP, MCALLEN HOSPITALS, LP D/B/A MCALLEN MEDICAL CENTER

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                wd

                                   CAUSE NO. C-0973-13-A

JUANA LAGUNA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS                  §
NEXT FRIEND OF REGINO GONZALEZ, JR.                §                               CLOCK
A MINOR CHILD, AND REGINO GONZALEZ,
SR.
                                                                                       043
                                                                                AR 25 2013
                                                                    LAUR.   i    NPI         (q
                                                                                 ig HH
Vv.                                                    g2X° JUDICIAR. 5                                    ~
                                                                                                  Deputy

RAY R. FULP, Ill, D.O., RAY FULP
ORTHOPEDICS, P.A., MARIA T. CAMACHO,
M.D., FRANCISCO TORRES, M.D., ROBERT
C. FOUNTILA, D.O., RADIOLOGY &
IMAGING OF SOUTH TEXAS, L.L.P., AND
McALLEN HOSPITALS, L.P. D/B/A
McALLEN MEDICAL CENTER                         §       HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

                                       ORIGINAL ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

       Defendant, Maria T. Camacho, M.D., makes the following Original Answer, and in support

thereof, would show the Court as follows:

                                               |

       This Defendant generally denies the material allegations of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition

and ail Amended Petitions and demands proof thereof as required by the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure and reserves the right to plead further and in greater particularity as the case

progresses should such be indicated.

                                               Ih

       This Defendant pleads the provisions of §§74.301, 74.302 and 74.303 of Chapter 74

of the Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code, which limits the amount of damages, except for past

and future medical expenses, that may be recovered herein.
Ml.

       Defendant further affirmatively pleads the provisions of the Texas Civil Practice &

Remedies Code, including §§41.007 and 41.008 which limit the amount of exemplary damages

which may be awarded against Defendant.

                                                 WV.

       For further answer, this Defendant invokes her legal right to a reduction of any dollar

verdict which may be rendered in this cause by credit for payments made by other persons or


entities or by percentage reductions to which this Defendant would be entitled as a result of jury

findings against other persons or entities. In this connection, this Defendant reserves the right

to submit issues against parties who may be present in the case or absent from the case at the

time the matter is submitted to the jury for fact determinations.

                                                 Vv

       Should Plaintiffs make a claim for punitive damages at any time, this Defendant further

invokes her rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment     of the United States Constitution and affirmatively pleads that the Plaintiffs’

pleading for punitive and/or exemplary damages is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment

inasmuch as punitive and/or exemplary damages can be assessed:

          1       in an amount left to the discretion of the jury and judge;

          2       in assessing such sums, the decision of the jury need only be based
                  on a vote of ten jurors and does not require a unanimous verdict:




                                           -2-
&                                       ~

                   in assessing such penalty or exemplary awards, plaintiff need only
                   prove the theory of gross negligence on a “preponderance of the
                   evidence” standard and not on a “beyond a reasonable doubt”
                   standard, as should be required in assessing a punishment award;


                   further, the defendants who are subject to the award do not have
                   the right to refuse to testify against themselves, but must, in fact,
                   take the stand and/or give deposition testimony or subject
                   themselves to the consequences of a default judgment;

                   the assessment of such a punishment and/or exemplary award is
                   not based upon a clearly defined statutory enactment setting forth
                   a specific mens rea requirement and/or other prerequisites of a
                   criminal fine and, in effect allows the assessment of such awards
                   even though there are not specific standards, limits or other
                   statutory requirements set forth which define the mens rea and
                   scope and limit of such awards. Therefore, the awards are unduly
                   vague and do not meet the requirements of due process;

                   in essence, this defendant is subjected to all the hazards and risks
                   of what amounts to a fine and, in fact, such awards often exceed
                   normal criminal fines; but this defendant receives none of the basic
                   rights afforded a criminal defendant when        being subjected to
                   possible criminal penalties; and

                   the assessment of punitive and/or exemplary damages differs from
                   defendant to defendant and treats similar defendants in dissimilar
                   ways.

       Further, if such    be necessary, this Defendant further affirmatively pleads that the

assessment   and   award    of punitive and/or exemplary damages       is violative of the Eighth

Amendment    of the United States Constitution as it is applied to the States through         the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in that such awards potentially consti-


tute an excessive fine imposed without the protections of fundamental due process.




                                               -3-
Vi.

       Accordingly,   this   Defendant    invokes     her rights under   the   Eighth   and   Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution and respectfully requests that this Court disallow

the award of punitive and/or    exemplary    damages       inasmuch as an award in this case would be


violative of the Defendant's United States constitutional rights.

                                                    Vil.

       Defendant would further invoke her right under the Fifth Amendment to the United

States Constitution wherein it reads in part, “No person shall be . . . deprived of . . . property,


without due process of law;      -” for the same reasons enumerated above.

       WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, Maria T. Camacho, M.D., prays that

Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of this suit, that Defendant recover her costs, and for such

other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which she may show herself justly entitled.

                                         Respectfully submitted,

                                         GONZALEZ CASTILLO, LLP


                                         9 Stun Comet
                                                Steven Gonzalea)
                                                SBN: 08131900
                                                Edward Castillo
                                                SBN: 24040658

                                         1317 E. Quebec Ave.
                                         McAllen, Texas 78503
                                         (956) 618-0115
                                         FAX: (956) 618-0445




                                                    -4-
wo

                                                       ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
                                                       MARIAT. CAMACHO, M.D.

                                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

           | hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
been forwarded to Plaintiff's counsel of record via certified mail, return receipt requested,
                                                                                              on
this 26" day of March, 2013.



                                                                uo  Steven M. Gonzal}:(pz
                                                                                            \
F:\data\WPDOCS\G\Gonzalez, R. v. Camacho, M.26\oa jd.lc.wod




                                                              -5-