Motion for Change of Venue in HUNTER BRIANet al vs. D'ANDRA D. BINGHAM, MDet al| Trellis.Law

On February 02, 2023 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Brian, Hunter, Scott, Shelby, and Bingham, D'Andra D., Md, Christus Health, Christus Health Ark-La-Tex, Collom & Carney Clinic Association, Keeney, Susan Elizabeth, Md, Pediatrix Medical Group Of Texas, Pediatrix Medical Services, Inc., for MEDICAL MALPRACTICE in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
3/3/2023 2:21 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Terri Kilgore DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-23-01657

HUNTER BRIAN and SHELBY SCOTT, IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§§§§§§§§§§§§§
individually and as next friends of L.F.B.,
a minor,

D’ANDRA D. BINGHAM, M.D.; DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
COLLOM & CARNEY CLINIC
ASSOCIATION; CHRISTUS HEALTH
ARK-LA-TEX d/b/a CHRISTUS ST.
MICHAEL HEALTH SYSTEM;
CHRISTUS HEALTH; SUSAN
ELIZABETH KEENEY, M.D.; and
PEDLATRIX MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., §
d/b/a PEDIATRIX MEDICAL GROUP OF §
TEXAS § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT CHRISTUS HEALTH’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
VENUE AND. SUBJECT T HERETO. ORIGINAL ANSWER

Defendant CHRISTUS Health, sometimes referred to as “Defendant,” ﬁles its Motion to

Transfer and subject to that Motion to Transfer Venue, Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original

Petition (“Petition”). Dallas County, Texas is not the proper venue of this action. Pursuant to

applicable law, venue is proper in Bowie County, Texas. Defendant moves to transfer venue from

Dallas County, Texas to Bowie County, Texas.

BACKGROUND

1. This is a medical malpractice action involving alleged acts or omissions in February

2021 at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System, which was and currently is, located in Texarkana,

Bowie County, Texas.

2. Plaintiffs have sued CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex d/b/a CHRISTUS St. Michael

Health System (hospital where Shelby Scott received care) and CHRISTUS Health (ultimate parent

company of CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex).

CHMTVOA -pg. I
CHRISTUS HEALTH ARK-LA-TEX

3. At all times relevant to Shelby Scott’s care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael

Health System, CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex was a Texas nonproﬁt corporation with its

principal ofﬁce and place of business located in Texarkana, Bowie County, Texas, and it was the

sole owner, operator, and licensee of, and did business as, CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System.

The principal ofﬁce of CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex was located in Texarkana, Bowie County,

Texas and has never been located in Dallas County, Texas. See, Afﬁdavit of Kenneth Cunningham

attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1 @ 1] 3a (pg. 14).

4. At all times relevant to Shelby Scott’s care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael

Health System, the decision makers who conducted the daily affairs of CHRISTUS St. Michael

Health System were located in Texarkana, Bowie County at 2600 St. Michael Drive, Texarkana,

Texas 75501. Id. @ 11 3b (pg. 14). The location for all meetings of the Board of Directors for

CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex was in Tyler, Smith County, Texas, and did not meet in Dallas

County, Texas. Id. In addition to the Board of Directors, the other decision makers who oversaw

the daily affairs of CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System (President, Chief Medical Ofﬁcer, and

Chief Nursing Ofﬁcer) were located in Texarkana, Bowie County, Texas. Id.

5. At all times relevant to Shelby Scott’s care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael

Health System, CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex had complete authority over the day-to-day

operations of CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System relating to patient care. Id. @ 1] 3c (pg. l4).

6. At all times relevant to Shelby Scott’s care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael

Health System, decisions regarding the care provided to her were made by her treating physicians

and the staff of CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System and her medical records were maintained

at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System. Id. @ 1] 3d (pg. 14).

CHMTVOA -pg. 2
CHRISTUS HEALTH

7. At all times relevant to Shelby Scott’s care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael

Health System, CHRISTUS Health was not licensed to provide health care, did not provide health

care to Shelby Scott, did not employ those Who provided such care, and did not make any clinical

decisions relating to her care; the clinical policies relating to her care were policies of CHRISTUS

St. Michael Health System and not CHRISTUS Health. Id. @ 11 3e (pg. 14). A health care provider-

patient relationship did not exist between CHRISTUS Health and Shelby Scott. Id.

8. At all times relevant to Shelby Scott’s care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael

Health System, CHRISTUS Northeast Texas Health System Corporation was the sole member of

CHRISTUS Health Ark-La—Tex, and CHRISTUS Health was the sole member of CHRISTUS

Northeast Texas Health System Corporation. Id. @ 1] 3f (pg. 14).

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

9. Venue is proper in the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or the county of the defendant’s principal ofﬁce in this

state if the defendant is not a natural person. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 15.002(a)(1) and

(3). “Principal ofﬁce” means the location in which the decision makers for the organization within

this state conduct the daily affairs of the organization. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 15.001(a).

Pursuant to § 15.006 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, venue is to be determined

based on the facts existing at the time the cause of action that is the basis of the suit accrued. The

cause of action that is the basis of this suit accrued in February 2021. Pursuant to Rule 87(2)(a) of

the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:

A party who seeks to maintain venue of the action in a particular county in
reliance upon Section 15.001 (General Rule), Sections 15.011 - 15.017
(Mandatory Venue), Sections 15.031 - 15.040 (Permissive Venue), or
Sections 15.061 and 15.062 (Multiple Claims), Civil Practice and Remedies

CHMTVOA -pg. 3
Code, has the burden to make proof, as provided in paragraph 3 of this rule,
that venue is maintainable in the county of suit.

10. Under Rule 87(3)(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, when a venue fact is

speciﬁcally denied, the party pleading the venue fact must make prima facie proof of that venue

fact. Prima facie proof is made when the venue facts are properly pleaded and an afﬁdavit, and

any duly proved attachments to the afﬁdavit, are ﬁled fully and speciﬁcally setting forth the facts

supporting such pleadings. Id. The afﬁdavit must be based upon personal knowledge, set forth

speciﬁc facts that are admissible in evidence, and afﬁrmatively show the afﬁant is competent to

testify.

11. As shown below, Defendant has speciﬁcally denied Plaintiffs’ venue facts. The

Petition alleges a cause of action in Bowie County, Texas because that is Where CHRISTUS St.

Michael Health System is located and where Shelby Scott was treated. See, Petition, pages 6, 9, W

6.02, 6.13.“ The cause of action asserted herein did not accrue in whole or in part in Dallas County,

Texas.

12. Venue is proper in Bowie County, Texas and is not proper in Dallas County, Texas

because at all times relevant to Shelby Scott’s care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health

System:

a. the alleged cause of action arose in Bowie County, Texas;

b. CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex did business in Bowie County as
CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System;

c. The decision makers for CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex who
conducted the daily affairs of CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System
were located in Bowie County, Texas;

d. CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex had its principal ofﬁce and place of
business in Bowie County, Texas; and

1/
Defendant requests the Court to take judicial notice of the pleadings on ﬁle in this cause pursuant to Tex. R. Evid.
201(b)(2).

CHMTVOA -pg. 4
e. CHRISTUS Health Ark-La—Tex did not have a principal ofﬁce in
Dallas County, Texas.

Therefore, venue is proper in Bowie County, Texas under §§ 15 .002(a)(1) and (3) of the Texas

Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

13. Plaintiffs concede that Bowie County, Texas is proper venue:

a. Plaintiffs reside in Bowie, County, Texas. See, Petition, page 2, W
2.01 , 2.02.

b. Defendant D’Andra D. Bingham, M.D. resides in Bowie County,
Texas. Id., page 2, 11 2.03.

c. Defendant Susan Elizabeth Keeney, M.D. resides in Bowie County,
Texas. Id., page 3, 11 2.07.

d. Shelby Scott was admitted to CHRISTUS St. Michael Health
System. Id., pages 6, 9, 1W 6.02, 6.13.

14. Plaintiffs’ only basis for venue in Dallas County, Texas is CHRISTUS Health’s

principal ofﬁce in Dallas County, Texas but venue is not proper as to CHRISTUS Health for the

following reasons:

a. There is no reasonable possibility that Plaintiffs will prevail on the
merits against CHRISTUS Health because CHRISTUS Health was
not licensed to provide health care, did not provide health care to
Shelby Scott, did not employ those who provided such care, and did
not make any clinical decisions relating to her care. Exhibit 1 @ 11
4 (pgs. 14-15).

b. The clinical policies relating to Shelby Scott’s care were policies of
CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System and not CHRISTUS Health.
Id.

c. CHRISTUS Health is not a real and substantial party and is being
sued to secure venue in Dallas County, Texas. That is unjust to
CHRISTUS Health and to the other defendants who should be
judged by their peers in Bowie County, Texas where the care was
provided. Id.

d. CHRISTUS Health is not the proper defendant to respond to
Plaintiffs’ claims in this case. The proper defendant to respond to

CHMTVOA -pg. 5
Plaintiffs’ claims in this case is CHRISTUS St. Michael Health
System, the facility Where Plaintiffs admit Shelby Scott received
care.

e. CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex d/b/a CHRISTUS St. Michael
Health System had its principal ofﬁce and place of business in Bowie
County, Texas and its decision makers were located in Bowie
County, Texas.

f. Plaintiffs simply rely on an afﬁliated relationship of entities
(CHRISTUS Health and CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex) which
had no connection to the medical care provided to Shelby Scott. This
is not enough to establish venue for this case in Dallas County,
Texas. CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex owned and operated
CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System where all of the alleged
activities occurred and made all decisions relevant to Shelby Scott’s
care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System. The
facility, CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System, the treatment, and
the decisions relating thereto occurred in Bowie County, Texas.

15. Furthermore, CHRISTUS Health is immune from liability for the obligations of

CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex d/b/a CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System. A member of a non-

proﬁt corporation is not liable for the debt, liability, or obligation of the nonproﬁt corporation of

which it is a member. TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE § 22.152; Green v. Port of Call Homeowners Assoc.,

No. 03-18-00264-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 6937 at *19 (Tex. App. —
Austin, Aug. 29, 2018,

no pet.) (afﬁrming summary judgment in favor of members of HOA against personal liability for

claims arising out of HOA’s alleged failure to protect value of properties). Thus, CHRISTUS

Health is not personally liable for the debt, liability, or obligation of CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-

Tex.

l6. Because CHRISTUS Health is not a proper party and not liable for the actions of

CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex d/b/a CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System, Plaintiffs cannot

prove a bona ﬁde cause of action against CHRISTUS Health. Proof of a cause of action against

the resident defendant is necessary to establish that the resident defendant is not joined fraudulently

CHMTVOA -pg. 6
for the purpose of maintaining improper venue. Von Scheele v. Kugler—Morris General

Contractors, Inc., 532 S.W. 2d 375, 380-81 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1975, writ dism’d., w.o.j.). The

purpose of this requirement is to establish the good faith of the plaintiff in joining the resident

defendant. Id. See also, Stoclg/ards National Bank v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 638 (1936); Kirksey

v. Warren, 348 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Tex. CiV. App. — Dallas 1961, no writ); Helland v. Western Constr.

C0., 516 S.W.2d 437, 441 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1974, no writ)(Because agent of disclosed

principal had no liability for contract claim and therefore there was no bona ﬁde claim against him,

joinder of agent to maintain venue was error and required reversal).

17. Consequently, the attempt to maintain venue in Dallas County, Texas is an

inappropriate attempt to deprive the Defendants of the proper venue in this case through a

fraudulent joinder of parties. Therefore, for these reasons, Defendant speciﬁcally denies the venue

allegations in the Petition. In the interest of justice, CHRISTUS Health requests that this matter be

transferred to Bowie County, Texas pursuant to § 15.002 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies

Code.

18. Alternatively, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of

justice, Defendant requests that this matter be transferred to Bowie County, Texas. It is

inconvenient for the Defendants and witnesses for this case to remain in Dallas County, Texas

because the care was provided in Bowie County, Texas and there is no reasonable possibility that

the Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits against CHRISTUS Health. Dallas County, Texas is an

inconvenient venue which will place economic and personal hardship on the Defendants and

witnesses. Exhibit 1 @ 1] 5 (pg. 15).

19. Maintenance of the action in Dallas County, Texas would work an injustice to all

Defendants, the balance of interests of all the parties predominates in favor of the action being

CHMTVOA -pg. 7
brought in Bowie County, Texas, and the transfer of the action would not work an injustice to any

other party. A11 of the persons who provided care to Shelby Scott did so in Bowie County, Texas.

The alleged incident occurred in Bowie County, Texas. The vast majority of witnesses are health

care providers who reside in or near Bowie County, Texas, and the records regarding Shelby

Scott’s care are maintained in Bowie County, Texas.

20. For the convenience of the Defendants and witnesses, CHRISTUS Health requests

that this matter be transferred to Bowie County, Texas.

WHEREFORE, CHRISTUS Health prays that the Court transfer this case to Bowie

County, Texas, and for such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity,

to which it may be justly entitled.

ORIGINAL ANSWER
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendant pleads a general denial as authorized by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure and demands strict proof of Plaintiffs’ claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
l. This lawsuit is a health care liability claim governed by Chapter 74 of the Texas

Civil Practice and Remedies Code (“CPRC”). Defendant speciﬁcally pleads the damage caps and

limitations as set out in Chapter 74.

2. There is a defect of the parties and Defendant is not a proper party. At all times

relevant to Shelby Scott’s care and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System, Defendant

was not licensed to provide health care, did not provide health care to Shelby Scott, did not employ

those who provided such care, and did not make any clinical decisions or provide clinical policies

relating to her care. The appropriate entity to respond to Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the care and

CHMTVOA -pg. 8
treatment Shelby Scott received at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System is CHRISTUS Health

Ark-La-Tex, a Texas nonproﬁt corporation, and not Defendant.

3. The Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be

granted under any direct theory of liability. Plaintiffs’ purported damages, if any, as against

Defendant, did not result from the acts and/or omissions of Defendant. Defendant did not breach

any duty owed to Plaintiffs, if any was owed. Plaintiffs have not suffered any injuries or damages
as a result of any act or omission of Defendant. Defendant’s acts or omissions are not the proximate

cause of any alleged damages or injuries to Plaintiffs.

4. The Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be

granted under any Vicarious theory of liability. Under § 22.152 of the Texas Business

Organizations Code, Vicarious liability claims cannot be pursued against Defendant because it is

immune from liability. Defendant denies that the physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers

involved in Shelby Scott’s care at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System, or any other defendant

or third party engaging in acts alleged by Plaintiffs, were acting as Defendant’s actual, apparent

and/or ostensible agents, servants, or employees of Defendant, at the instruction of Defendant, or

within the control of Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek recovery from Defendant for

those acts or omissions, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in Whole or in part as a matter of law.

Although Defendant denies that it is vicariously liable for any other person or entity, Defendant

asserts that it is entitled to any defense available to such a party.

5. Defendant asserts that it is entitled to a reduction, an offset, or a bar to any recovery

by Plaintiffs as set out in Chapters 32 and 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and

other contribution and indemnity provisions under the laws of the State of Texas.

CHMTVOA -pg. 9
6. Should Plaintiffs compromise or settle claims and/or causes of action against any

other person or party, Defendant reserves the right and option to receive a credit, a percentage

reduction, or other appropriate relief with respect to such settlement in accordance with Chapters

32 and 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Solely to preserve its procedural rights

and remedies with respect to submission of comparative fault/proportionate responsibility should

such settlements be effectuated, Defendant states that any such settling persons or parties

negligently caused the damages made the basis of Plaintiffs’ action herein. Defendant asserts

Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and requests the jury to determine, as

applicable, the percentage of responsibility for each claimant, each defendant, each settling person,

and each responsible third party who may be designated under § 33 .004 of the Texas Civil Practice

and Remedies Code. Defendant reserves the right to elect a dollar-for-dollar credit for any

settlement monies, or other consideration paid to or for the beneﬁt of Plaintiffs, or, alternatively,

for such percentage or dollar credits as provided by statute and/or the common law.

7. Defendant would show unto the Court that it is entitled to a credit, setoff and/or

offset for those medical and healthcare services expenses which Plaintiffs are claiming, to the

extent of any govemmentally mandated reduction in charges, as a result of Medicare, Medicaid

and/or any other federally funded program. To the extent that any bills, or portions of bills, incurred

at any healthcare provider are still owing or are written off, such amounts should be setoff, offset

and/or credited against any claim for past medical care. To the extent that the medical expenses

were covered by Medicare, Medicaid or any other governmental entity, Defendant would show

unto the Court that it is entitled to an offset.

CHMTVOA -pg. 10
8. Defendant invokes the provisions of § 41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code, which limit the recovery of medical or healthcare expenses to the amount actually

paid or incurred by or on behalf of claimant.

9. Defendant invokes the provisions of §18.091 of the Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code which limit recovery for loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, loss of

contributions of a pecuniary value, and loss of inheritance to any net loss after reduction for income

tax payments or unpaid tax liability. Further, Defendant afﬁrmatively pleads that Plaintiffs should

be required to submit evidence of alleged future losses in accordance with the requirements of

subchapter k of Chapter 74 CPRC.

10. Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of damages or cost against Defendant.

11. Plaintiffs’ claims for prejudgment and post-judgment interest are limited by the

dates and amounts set forth in Chapter 304 of the Texas Finance Code.

12. Defendant incorporates by reference any afﬁrmative defenses by any defendant and

reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this Original Answer to assert any such defense at

a future time and in conformity with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Defendant requests the Court to set this matter on the Level III discovery control plan.

JURY DEMAND
Defendant demands a jury trial and will tender the appropriate fee.

REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

Pursuant to Rule 194 TRCP, Plaintiffs are required to disclose the information or materials

described in Rule 194.2.

CHMTVOA -pg. II
NOTICE OF SELF-AUTHENTICATION

Defendant hereby gives notice that any document in response to written discovery

authenticates the document for use against Plaintiffs in any pre-trial proceeding or at trial pursuant

to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

WHEREFORE, CHRISTUS Health prays that the Court enter a take nothing judgment

denying recovery to Plaintiffs in this cause, that it be granted recovery of its costs, and for such

other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which it may be justly

entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

SHANNON, MARTIN, FINKELSTEIN, ALVARADO &
DUNNE, P.C.
1001 McKinney St., Suite 560
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: (713) 805-5241
Fax: (713) 752-0337
lalvarado@smfadlaw.com

Byz/s/ Lisa Alvarado
Elizabeth D. (Lisa) Alvarado
Texas Bar No. 01125980

Attorneys for Defendant CHRISTUS Health

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that I have personally conducted a telephone conference with Les Weisbrod and
Carrie Lynn Vine, Plaintiffs’ counsel, at which there was substantive discussion of every item
presented to the Court in this motion and, despite best efforts, we have not been able to resolve
those matters presented.

Certiﬁed to the Day March 3, 2023.
/s/ Lisa Alvarado
Elizabeth D. (Lisa) Alvarado

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 3, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon
all attorneys of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

/s/ Lisa Alvarado
Elizabeth D. (Lisa) Alvarado

CHMTVOA -pg. I2
EXHIBIT 1

CAUSE NO. DC-23—01657

HUNTER BRIAN and SHELBY SCOTT, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
individually and as next friends of L.F.B., §
a minor, §
§
V.
é
D’ANDRA D. BINGHAM, M.D.; § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
COLLOM & CARNEY CLINIC §
ASSOCIATION; CHRISTUS HEALTH §
ARK-LA-TEX d/b/a CHRISTUS ST. §
MICHAEL HEALTH SYSTEM; §
CHRISTUS HEALTH; SUSAN §
ELIZABETH KEENEY, M.D.; and §
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., §
d/b/a PEDIATRIX MEDICAL GROUP OF §
TEXAS § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AFFIDAVIT 0F KENNETH CUNNINGHAM
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §

Before me, the undersigned authority, did personally appear Kenneth Cunningham, who
being duly sworn, stated, and deposed under oath the following:

1. “My name is Kenneth Cunningham. I am a resident of the State of Texas. I am competent
to make this afﬁdavit. I am making this afﬁdavit in support of the Motion to Transfer Venue
of Defendant CHRISTUS Health.

I am a Vice President and Regional General Counsel for CHRISTUS Health. As part of
my duties as Vice President and Regional General Counsel, I am familiar with the
operations of CHRISTUS Health and its afﬁliate, CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex d/b/a
CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System. I am authorized by CHRISTUS Health and
CHRISTUS Health Ark-La—Tex to make this afﬁdavit. I am familiar with the location,
principal ofﬁce, and decision makers for CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex d/b/a CHRISTUS
St. Michael Health System. As a result of my position, and my own personal knowledge, I am
familiar with, and understand the relationship between CHRISTUS Health and CHRISTUS
Health Ark-La—Tex d/b/a CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System. In this position, I have
personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and they are true and correct.

Shelby Scott’s care and treatment that is the subject of this lawsuit occurred at CHRISTUS
St. Michael Health System in February 2021. At all times relevant t0 Shelby Scott’s care
and treatment at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System:

CHMTVOA -pg. I3
EXHIBIT 1

a. CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex was a Texas nonproﬁt corporation with its
principal ofﬁce and place of business located in Texarkana, Bowie County,
Texas, and it was the sole owner, operator, and licensee of, and did business
as, CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System. The principal ofﬁce of
CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex was located in Texarkana, Bowie County,
Texas and has never been located in Dallas County, Texas.

b. The decision makers who conducted the daily affairs of CHRISTUS St.
Michael Health System were located in Texarkana, Bowie County at 2600
St. Michael Drive, Texarkana, Texas 75 501. The location for all meetings
of the Board of Directors for CHRISTUS Health Ark-La—Tex was in Tyler,
Smith County, Texas, and did not meet in Dallas County, Texas. In addition
to the Board of Directors, the other decision makers who oversaw the daily
affairs of CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System (President, Chief Medical
Ofﬁcer, and Chief Nursing Ofﬁcer) were located in Texarkana, Bowie
County, Texas

c. CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex had complete authority over the day-to-day
operations of CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System relating to patient
care.

d. Decisions regarding the care provided to Shelby Scott were made by her
treating physicians and the staff of CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System
and her medical records were maintained at CHRISTUS St. Michael Health
System.

e. CHRISTUS Health was not licensed to provide health care, did not provide
health care to Shelby Scott, did not employ those who provided such care,
and did not make any clinical decisions relating to her care. The clinical
policies relating to Shelby Scott’s care were policies of CHRISTUS St.
Michael Health System and not CHRISTUS Health. A health care provider-
patient relationship did not exist between CHRISTUS Health and Shelby
Scott.

f. CHRISTUS Northeast Texas Health System Corporation was the sole
member of CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex, and CHRISTUS Health was
the sole member of CHRISTUS Northeast Texas Health System
Corporation.

There is no reasonable possibility that the Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits against
CHRISTUS Health because CHRISTUS Health was not licensed to provide health care,
did not provide health care to Shelby Scott, did not employ those who provided such care,
and did not make any clinical decisions relating to her care. The clinical policies relating
to Shelby Scott’s care were policies of CHRISTUS St. Michael Health System and not
CHRISTUS Health. CHRISTUS Health is not a real and substantial party and is being sued
to secure venue in Dallas County, Texas. That is unjust to CHRISTUS Health and to the

CHMTVOA -pg. I4
EXHIBIT 1

other Defendants who should be judged by their peers in Bowie County, Texas where the
care was provided. In the interest of justice, CHRISTUS Health requests that this matter
be transferred to Bowie County, Texas.

5. It is inconvenient for the Defendants and witnesses for this case to remain in Dallas County,
Texas because the care was provided in Bowie County, Texas and there is no reasonable
possibility that the Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits against CHRISTUS Health. Dallas
County, Texas is an inconvenient venue which will place economic and personal hardship
on the Defendants and witnesses. For the convenience of the Defendants and witnesses,
CHRISTUS Health requests that this matter be transferred to Bowie County, Texas.

Further afﬁant sayeth not.”

,KENNETH WGHAM, J.D.
Vice President/Regional General Counsel
CHRISTUS Health

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME on March
which witness my hand and seal of oﬁice.
3 , 2023 to certify

WNW 33mm
Notary Public, State of Texas
\\\\“\\natlaarll,,”’
s‘hl‘
as?”

1’50F"
23133
IL
”0/" “NV

CHMTVOA -pg. I5
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.

Debra Boyd on behalf of Elizabeth Alvarado
Bar No. 1125980
dboyd@smfadlaw.com
Envelope ID: 73327545
Status as of 3/3/2023 3:58 PM CST

Associated Case Party: CHRISTUS HEALTH

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Sherry EKelly skelly@smfadlaw.com 3/3/2023 2:21 :09 PM SENT
Debra Boyd dboyd@smfadlaw.com 3/3/2023 2:21:09 PM SENT
Elizabeth D. (Lisa)Alvarado lalvarado@smfadlaw.com 3/3/2023 2:21:09 PM SENT
Carlos Mattioli cmattioli@smfadlaw.com 3/3/2023 2:21:09 PM SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Michelle Obach mobach@schellcooley.com 3/3/2023 2:21:09 PM SENT
Vera Brumley vbrumley@schellcooley.com 3/3/2023 2:21:09 PM SENT
LES WEISBROD lweisbrod@millen~eisbrod.com 3/3/2023 2:21:09 PM SENT
Russell Schell rschell@schellcooley.com 3/3/2023 2:21:09 PM ERROR

Case Info

Judge

TILLERY, DALE Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 03, 2023

Case Filing Date

February 02, 2023

County

Parties

ALVARADO, ELIZABETH D. Attorney for the Defendant
BINGHAM, D'ANDRA D., MD Defendant
BRIAN, HUNTER Plaintiff
CHRISTUS HEALTH Defendant
CHRISTUS HEALTH ARK-LA-TEX Defendant
COLLOM & CARNEY CLINIC ASSOCIATION Defendant
DRY, ROBERT T, III Attorney for the Defendant
KEENEY, SUSAN ELIZABETH, MD Defendant
OBACH, MICHELL G Attorney for the Defendant
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL GROUP OF TEXAS Defendant
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. Defendant
SCHELL, RUSSELL W Attorney for the Defendant
SCOTT, SHELBY Plaintiff
STEPHENSON, JON W Attorney for the Defendant
SUTKER, CORY MATTHEW Attorney for the Defendant
WEISBROD, LES Attorney for the Plaintiff
WILLIAM, KRISTINA M Attorney for the Defendant
YANKOWSKY, KEVIN WILLIAM Attorney for the Defendant
Charles Miller Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Carrie Vine Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Casey Cashion Attorneys for Defendants
Betty Feng Attorneys for Defendants
Lisa Blue Attorney
Jennifer Hamlett Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: HUNTER BRIANet al vs. D'ANDRA D. BINGHAM, MDet al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties