Motion,Ex Parte: EDGAR PEREZ vs. SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER,Round Table Physicians Group, PLLC

On June 07, 2019 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Perez, Edgar, and Round Table Physicians Group, Pllc, Signature Care Emergency Center, for CPRC Chapter 12 in the District Court of Hidalgo County.

Preview
Electronically Filed
FILED7/25/2022
- 7/9/20191:56
2:16PM
PM
MDL-15-0360 / 34981739
Hidalgo County District Clerks
ERIC Reviewed
GARZA By: Adrienne Rocha
Cameron County District Clerk
By Janet Lopez Deputy Clerk
MDL NO. 15-0360

In Re: § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
FRAUDULENT HOSPITAL §
LIEN LITIGATION. §
§ 444th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§ (MDL PRETRIAL COURT)
§
§
§
§ CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

__________________________________________________________________

CAUSE NO. C-2540-19-L

BALDEMAR QUINTERO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY §
CENTER AND ROUND TABLE §
PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Defendants. §
§
CAUSE NO. C-2541-19-L

MARIA QUINTERO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY §
CENTER AND ROUND TABLE §
PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Defendants. §
§
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

CAUSE NO. C-2542-19-L

KARINA QUINTERO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § 464th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY §
CENTER AND ROUND TABLE §
PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Defendants. §
§
CAUSE NO. C-2543-19-H

EDGAR PEREZ, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § 389th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY §
CENTER AND ROUND TABLE §
PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Defendants. §
§

SUBJECT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE,
DEFENDANTS SUGARLAND MISSION BEND EMERGENCY CENTER PLLC’S D/B/A
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER AND
ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC’S JOINT MOTION TO REMAND

Subject to Defendants’ Motions to Transfer Venue and following this Court’s granting of

that motion and transfer of these cases from the 389th and 464th district courts of Hidalgo County

to a district court of proper venue in Fort Bend County, Sugarland Mission Bend Emergency

Center PLLC d/b/a Signature Care Emergency Center (“Signature Care”) and Round Table

Physicians Group, PLLC (“Round Table”) file this Joint Motion to Remand, and respectfully ask

2
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

this Court to remand these proceedings from this MDL Court to the respective district courts in

Fort Bend County, Texas.

The Motion to Transfer Venue

On June 7, 2019, these lawsuits were filed in Hidalgo County against SignatureCare and

Round Table relating to liens filed in Fort Bend County for medical care received by the individual

plaintiffs in SignatureCare facilities located in Fort Bend County. On June 11, 2019, these cases

were subsequently tagged into this MDL. On July 8, 2019, the Defendants filed motions to transfer

venue in each of these four cases requesting that this Court transfer venue from the 389th and

464th district courts of Hidalgo County, which is not a county of proper venue, to district courts

in Fort Bend County, which is a county of proper venue. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §

12.004.

Under Rule 86 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants’ Motions to Transfer

Venue must be heard and ruled on before any other plea or pleading. Rule 13.5(e) of the Texas

Rules of Judicial Administration provides that any party to a tag-along case that is transferred to

an MDL court may move the pretrial court to remand the case to the trial court on the ground that

it is not a tag-along case as defined by those rules. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 13.5(e). Rule 13.5(e)

provides this motion should be filed within 30 days after receipt of notice of being tagged into an

MDL. Id. Accordingly, subject to Defendants’ motions to transfer venue and to the extent

necessary, Defendants file this joint motion to remand and would ask that this Court consider and

grant their motions to transfer venue and, following the granting of those motions transferring

these cases from the 389th and 464th district courts in Hidalgo County to a district court in Fort

Bend County where venue is proper, remand these cases to the respective district courts in Fort

Bend County for inclusion in a proposed MDL for Harris County and Fort Bend County.

3
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

Procedural Background

Round Table and an affiliate SignatureCare facility, TC Jester Emergency PLLC d/b/a

SignatureCare-TC Jester are defendants in Cause No. 2018-91391, Terrance Williams v.

SignatureCare LLC et al; in the 334th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, (the “Williams

case”) which was tagged into this MDL on May **, 2019. Round Table and SignatureCare-TC

Jester filed a motion to remand on May 24, 2019 and their motion was heard by this court on June

12, 2019. A week before that hearing, these four lawsuits were filed in Hidalgo County and were

subsequently tagged into this MDL.

On June 11, 2019, Round Table and SignatureCare-TC Jester filed a motion to transfer the

Williams case and other cases pending against SignatureCare and Round Table in Harris County

and Fort Bend County to an MDL court in Harris County. See Ex. A (without exhibits). At the

hearing on the motion to remand the Williams case, Round Table and SignatureCare-TC Jester

asked this court to remand the Williams case, which was improperly tagged as a tag-along case,

back to Harris County so that it could be included in the Harris County and Fort Bend County

MDL when that MDL court is created. On June 25, 2019, this Court remanded the Williams case

back to Harris County. As a result, these four Hidalgo County cases are the only cases, again,

against these Defendants.

This Court should remand these cases to the respective district courts in Fort Bend County

so that they can be a part of an MDL court for Harris and Fort Bend Counties.

Factual Background

Defendant Sugarland Mission Bend Emergency Center d/b/a Signature Care Emergency

Center is a “freestanding emergency medical care facility” located in Fort Bend County, Texas at

8910 S Texas 6, Houston, Texas. Round Table is a company that provides staffing of medical care

4
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

services using board-certified physicians to provide emergency hospital care services at

SignatureCare facilities including the SignatureCare facility located in Fort Bend County. The

Plaintiffs, who are allegedly residents of Hidalgo County, received emergency medical care in Fort

Bend County.

Following an accident on or about June 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs were admitted to and

received emergency hospital services at Signature Care's freestanding emergency medical care

facility located at 8910 Highway 6 S, Houston, Texas located in Fort Bend County. After treating

the Plaintiffs, the Defendants filed Chapter 55 liens in Fort Bend County to preserve their right to

receive payment for the emergency hospital services provided to the Plaintiffs when they were

admitted to the Signature Care facility located in Fort Bend County.

As a result of these lien filings, Plaintiffs sued Round Table and Signature Care in Hidalgo

under Chapter 12 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. See Pltf’s Pet., ¶¶ 5.1-5.3.1 The

Plaintiffs each allege the liens filed by Round Table and Signature Care are fraudulent because

these parties are not legally entitled to file such a lien. Id. In part, the plaintiffs contend that the

lien notices filed by Signature Care and Round Table were “fraudulent,” because the facility is not

a “hospital” contemplated by section 55.002 of the Texas Property Code and, by extension, its

physicians cannot file a Chapter 55 lien. There has been no complaint that Signature Care or

Round Table caused any bodily injury. Id.

These Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as Mr. Williams in the Williams case.

These cases were tagged into this MDL shortly before this Court heard the Motion to Remand in

the Williams case.

1
The Original Petition of each of the four Hidalgo County Cases are virtually identical with respect to the claims
made and the facts alleged. All four plaintiffs were treated on the same day at the same facility..

5
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

Summary of the Argument

These cases, like the Williams case, are not subject to the MDL Panel’s Order dated August

12, 2015. See Ex. B, MDL Panel Order; Ex. D, Williams Remand Order . Venue is not appropriate

in Hidalgo County. Mandatory venue for these lawsuits exists in Fort Bend County, not Hidalgo

County. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§12.002 and 15.002. The mandatory venue

provisions of Chapter 12 require that any action relating to the filing of a Chapter 55 lien must be

filed in the county where the lien was filed, which is Fort Bend County, Texas.

More importantly, when this MDL was created, the Panel did not create a state-wide MDL

court. Rather, the Panel created an MDL docket for Hidalgo County fraudulent lien cases. Ex. C,

MDL Opinion, p. 3.

In addition, Plaintiffs have mischaracterized their cases against Round Table and Signature

Care as “tag alongs” under Rule 13.5(b). The Rules of Judicial Administration authorize the MDL

panel “to transfer ‘related’ cases from different trial courts to a single pretrial judge if transfer will

(1) serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and (2) promote the just and efficient

conduct of the litigation.” In re Ad Valorem Tax Litigation, 216 S.W.3d 83, 84 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel

2006); TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 13.3. Rule 13.2(g) defines a tag-along case as a case “related” to cases

in an MDL transfer order but not itself the subject of an initial MDL motion or order. There is no

requirement that the cases be congruent, but they must involve one or more common questions

of fact. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 74.162 (Vernon 2005); TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 13.2(f); In re Hurricane

Rita Evacuation Bus Fire, 216 S.W.3d 70, 72 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2006).

Unlike every other case in the MDL court, these defendants do not have contracts with

private health insurers or government payers. These defendants’ chargemaster rates are the rates

used for all patients. Thus, this case does not involve any issue regarding the comparison of

6
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

contractually-negotiated rates of reimbursement with rates of reimbursement for self-pay or

uninsured patients Moreover, the Legislative amendment of Chapter 55 has eliminated the only

common issue of law: “the applicability of Chapter 12, if an emergency room can file Hospital

Liens, the meaning of the term ‘admitted’, and the rate limitation of Chapter 55 as to the amount

that can be collected under a hospital lien.”

Finally, it is not geographically convenient to require these defendants to travel to Cameron

County when they have no business interests in this county and the claims made here arise from

events that occurred in Fort Bend County, more than 355 miles away.

Argument and Authorities

A. This is not a state-wide MDL court.

Prior to May 2015, the MDL plaintiff’s liaison attorney, and counsel for the Plaintiffs here,

filed over 100 lawsuits against McAllen Hospitals, L.P. doing business as McAllen Medical

Center. On May 13, 2015, plaintiff’s liaison attorney, Mr. J. Michael Moore, filed a motion to

establish a multidistrict litigation pretrial court (“MDL”) for the approximately 124 cases he had

filed in Hidalgo County against the McAllen hospital system. On June 26, 2015, Mr. Moore

limited his request for an MDL court to preside over only those cases filed in Hidalgo County.

Less than a month later, the MDL Panel issued its Opinion and Order, granted the motion to

transfer, and created an MDL pretrial court in Cameron County, Texas and transferred “current

pending cases in Hidalgo County against [McAllen Medical Center] and any other hospital in

Hidalgo County managed by South Texas Health System.” MDL No. 15-0360; In re Fraudulent

7
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

Hospital Lien Litigation; 444th District Court of Cameron County. See Ex. B, Order of MDL Panel

No. 15-0360, Aug. 21, 2015; Ex. C, Opinion of MDL Panel No. 15-0360, Aug. 12, 2015.

In its opinion, the court noted that the “patient-plaintiffs ask us to transfer . . . the current

pending cases in Hidalgo County against these defendants and any other hospital in Hidalgo

County managed by South Texas Health System.” Ex. C, p. 3. And in the Panel’s Order, the Panel

stated that “the cases listed in the Appendix of the Motion for Transfer, and all tag-along cases

filed in Hidalgo County, if any, are transferred.” Ex. B (emphasis added). The Panel did not create

a state-wide MDL court. In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co. Hurricane Litig., 422 S.W.3d 926, 932 (Jeff

Brown, J., concurring) (rejecting a rule that would result in a perpetual MDL concerning cases

filed anywhere in the state without definable boundaries and remanding those cases pending in

other counties and involving other insurers as unrelated).

B. These cases do not meet the relatedness test; there are no common issues of fact—
different patients, different payers, different facilities.

The standards for determining whether a tag-along case is proper are the same standards

the MDL Panel applies when it decides an original motion. In re Wellington Ins. Co. Hailstorm

Litigation, 427 S.W.3d 581, 534 (Tex. M.D. Panel 2014). Accordingly, this Court must make two

distinct findings: (1) that these cases are related and (2) that placing these cases in the MDL will

serve the interests of convenience and efficiency. Id. These prerequisites are not met here. There

are not common operative facts between these cases and the other MDL cases, and any common

legal issue is not a basis for transfer.

This Court must remand if the Plaintiffs cannot establish one or more issues of common

fact between the transferred case and the MDL cases. See Ad Valorem Tax Litig., 216 S.W.3d at,

84. Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden. There is no commonality of interest between these

8
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

Defendants and the claims brought against the McAllen hospitals in the South Texas Health

System or any of the other defendants:

• SignatureCare and Round Table have no connection or affiliation with the other
MDL defendants

• There are no shared fact witnesses between SignatureCare and Round Table and
any of the other defendants

• The damages alleged and the discovery pertinent to this plaintiff and these
defendants is not subject to uniformity; rather it will be individualized and
specific

• SignatureCare and Round Table do not have negotiated rates of reimbursement
with any private insurers. These defendants do not contract with managed care
providers, private insurers, government payers or HMO health care providers.

This MDL case began with claims made against McAllen hospitals and their billing entities

amidst allegations that those entities engaged in a systematic practice of filing liens against

uninsured patients at unreasonably high rates. There, all of the patients were treated at McAllen

Medical Center facilities, all of the patients were uninsured at the time they were treated and all

of the patients alleged they were harmed by the same defendant’s systematic business practices.

See Ex. C, Opinion, p. 1. The MDL pretrial court was assigned to preside over a select category

of fraudulent lien cases — those cases filed in Hidalgo County that involve entities with negotiated

contracts and who allegedly bill different patients at different rates, including a chargemaster rate.

Id. at p. 3. This is not such a case.

Signature Care and Round Table do not have contracts with private health insurers or

Medicare or Medicaid. These defendants bill all patients the same rates, the chargemaster rates.

Unlike every other case before this MDL Court, Defendants are not Chapter 241 hospitals having

contracts with private health insurers or Medicare or Medicaid. These cases are not about

contractually negotiated rates of reimbursement compared to rates of reimbursement for self-pay

or uninsured patients, which is at issue in the other cases pending in this MDL Court. And these

9
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

Plaintiffs have not alleged that the rates charged by SignatureCare or Round Table are

unreasonable—there are no allegations that the rate limitation of Chapter 55 is at issue in these

cases. See generally, Pltf’s, Pet.

Instead, these cases are about whether a freestanding emergency medical care facility that

provides “hospital services” in this State for purposes of filing a Chapter 55 lien . TEX. PROP. CODE

ANN. § 55.001(3). The Plaintiffs claim that Chapter 241 hospitals are the only entities that can file

liens even though the statute does not limit Chapter 55 to Chapter 241 hospitals. See Pltf’s Pet, ¶

5.1. This issue of statutory interpretation is applicable exclusively to SignatureCare and no other

defendant in the Cameron County MDL.

C. The Legislative clarification of Chapter 55 has eliminated the only common legal
issue.

Defendants anticipate that Plaintiffs will contend that a common issue of statutory

interpretation “relates” this case to the MDL cases: the meaning of the term “admitted”. This

issue—whether the word “admitted” in section 55.002(a) of the Texas Property Code requires

inpatient admission as a precondition to filing a lien—has now been resolved by the Texas

Legislature. See Ex. E.2 Specifically, on May 9 and 22, 2019, House Bill No. 2929 passed the

House and Senate, respectively.3 This proposed bill adds section 55.0015 to Chapter 55, which

states:

For purposes of this chapter, an injured individual is considered admitted to a
hospital if the individual is allowed access to any department of the hospital for the
provision of any treatment, care or service to the individual.

2
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/HB02929H.htm. The bill takes effect immediately upon signature
by the Governor because it received a vote of two-thirds of each house.
3
https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2929/2019.

10
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

See Ex. E. With its passage, the legislature has resolved that a hospital may file a Chapter 55 lien

for medical services provided to an accident victim without an inpatient admission. This

legislative clarification removes the only other issue that related to both these cases and the MDL

cases and affirmatively provides that a Chapter 55 lien attaches to the tort recovery of an accident

victim treated in an emergency room. No other common issue of fact or law exists that has not

been eliminated by this legislative clarification.

D. Transfer is not convenient to the parties or the witnesses

This venue is not convenient to the parties or the witnesses and transfer of this case to this

Court does not promote judicial economy. Second, the liens filed in this case were filed in Fort

Bend County as required by Chapter 55 and venue is proper there. Signature Care and Round Table

operate exclusively in Harris and Fort Bend County, more than 355 miles from this courthouse.

The corporate witnesses and the facility witnesses are all in Harris or Fort Bend County. Traveling

355 miles to participate in pretrial proceedings in this case, when there are no common witnesses,

issues of fact, or uniform discovery issues that would apply to these defendants and the other MDL

defendants is neither convenient or efficient. Because there are no parties in common, there are

no economies to be achieved by MDL consolidation. The defendants will clearly be

inconvenienced if they must travel to Cameron County and participate in unrelated pretrial and

discovery hearings. See Ad Valorem Tax. Litig., 216 S.W.3d at 86.

Conclusion

Accordingly, subject to the motions to transfer venue in each of these lawsuits and

following this court’s granting of those motions and transfer of these cases from the 389th and

464th district courts of Hidalgo County to a district court of proper venue in Fort Bend County,

Defendants Round Table and Signature Care respectfully request that this Court remand the

11
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

following cases to the respective district courts in Fort Bend County, Texas because (1) no

common issue of fact or law exists between these cases and the other MDL cases and (2)

Defendants have requested an MDL in a geographically more appropriate venue:

Cause No. C-2541-19-L; Maria Quintero v. Signature Care Emergency Center, et al.; In

the 464th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;

Cause No. C-2542-19-L; Karina Quintero v. Signature Care Emergency Center, et al.; In

the 464th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;

Cause No. C-2543-19-H; Edgar Perez v. Signature Care Emergency Center, et al.; In the

389th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas; and

Class Action filed in Cause No. C-2540-19-L; Baldemar Quintero, Jr. v. Signature Care

Emergency Center, et al.; In the 464th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.”

DATED: July 9, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

By: /s/ Christopher D. DeMeo
Christopher D. DeMeo
Texas Bar No. 00796456
cdemeo@seyfarth.com
Kay Hazelwood
Texas Bar No. 09310450
khazelwood@seyfarth.com
Andrew P. del Junco
Texas Bar No. 24097585
adeljunco@seyfarth.com
700 Milam, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-0292
Facsimile: (713) 225-2340

ATTORNEYS FOR SUGARLAND MISSION
BEND EMERGENCY CENTER, PLLC AND
ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP,
PLLC

12
Electronically Filed
7/25/2022 1:56 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Adrienne Rocha

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that pursuant to Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on
July 9, 2019, a true and correct copy of this submission was served on all opposing counsel by
approved electronic filing service including:

Moore Law Firm
J. Michael Moore
4900 North 10th Street, Suite F3
McAllen, Texas 78504

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Christopher D. DeMeo
Christopher D. DeMeo

Case Info

Judge

Ysmael D. Fonseca Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 25, 2022

Case Filing Date

June 07, 2019

County

Parties

JAMES MICHAEL MOORE Attorney for the Plaintiff
MELAINE A. RUBINSKY Attorney for the Defendant
PEREZ, EDGAR Plaintiff
Round Table Physicians Group, PLLC Defendant
SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER Defendant
Joel Mohrman Attorney
Anderson Cao Attorney
David Oliveira Attorneys for Defendants
Juan Hinojosa Attorneys for Defendants
Kay Hazelwood Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Demeo Attorneys for Defendants
Andrew del Junco Attorneys for Defendants
Randolph Amaro Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

Motion,Ex Parte: EDGAR PEREZ vs. SIGNATURE CARE EMERGENCY CENTER,Round Table Physicians Group, PLLC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties