Motion to Compel in PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS vs. METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS| Trellis.Law

On June 15, 2022 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Roberts, Pamela Sneed, and Methodist Hospitals Of Dallas, for MEDICAL MALPRACTICE in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
9/1/2023 5:13 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Martin Reyes DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-22-06491

PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
§
V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
METHODIST HOSPITALS OF §
DALLAS D/B/A METHODIST §
DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER, §
§
Defendant. § 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS D/B/A
METHODIST DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL

To The Honorable Judge of Said Court:

Comes Now, Methodist Hospitals of Dallas d/b/a Methodist Dallas Medical Center

(“Defendant”), Defendant in the above styled and numbered Cause, and file this its Motion to Compel,

and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows:

I.
NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff, Pamela Sneed Roberts (“Plaintiff”) filed this

health care liability claim on June 15, 2022. Plaintiff claims the alleged negligence of Defendant

proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges she suffered a fall after

undergoing left knee replacement surgery, and despite numerous subsequent surgeries and multiple

hospitalizations, blood flow to her left leg could not be adequately restored, resulting in amputation

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 1
of her left leg. Defendant timely filed its Original Answer on July 22, 2022. From June 15, 2022, to

approximately February 13, 2023, this case was in a discovery stay pending Chapter 74 expert reports.

According to the current Defendant’s Scheduling Order (Level 3) in place, which was signed

by the Court on March 15, 2023 (the “Scheduling Order”), fact discovery closed on July 14, 2023,

and all motions to compel responses to discovery must be filed no later than September 1, 2023.

Therefore, this Motion to Compel is timely under the current applicable Scheduling Order. Defendant

files this Motion to Compel requesting the Court deem Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Responses to

Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions as admitted. In the alternative,

Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to amend her First Supplemental Responses to Request

Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff.

II.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

I. Legal Standard for Requests for Admissions.

“‘Requests for admission are a tool, not a trapdoor.’” Medina v. Zuniga, 593 S.W.3d 238,

244 (Tex. 2019) (quoting Bodnow Corp. v. City of Hondo, 721 S.W.2d 839, 840 (Tex. 1986)).

“They primarily serve ‘to simplify trials by eliminating matters about which there is no real

controversy, but which may be difficult or expensive to prove.’” Medina, 593 S.W.3d at 244

(quoting Sanders v. Harder, 148 Tex. 593, 227 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Tex. 1950)). “When used ‘as

intended,’ requests for admissions are useful in ‘addressing uncontroverted matters or evidentiary

ones like the authenticity or admissibility of documents.’” Medina, 593 S.W.3d at 244

(quoting Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex. 2005)).

Rule 198.2, which is the rule governing Responses to Requests for Admissions states,

“Unless the responding party states an objection or asserts a privilege, the responding party must

specifically admit or deny the request or explain in detail the reasons that the responding party

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 2
cannot admit or deny the request. A response must fairly meet the substance of the request.”

Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(b) (emphasis added). “A party who has requested an admission under

Rule 198 may move to determine the sufficiency of the answer...” Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.4(a). “[A]n

evasive or incomplete answer may be treated as a failure to answer” and the request is deemed

admitted. See id.

II. Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions.

Defendant served its First Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff on June 6, 2023 1

(“Defendant’s First RFA”). Plaintiff served her Objections and Responses to Defendant’s First

Requests for Admissions on July 5, 2023 (“Plaintiff’s Original Responses”). A true and correct copy

of Plaintiff’s Objections and Responses to Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions is attached

hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference herein. However, Plaintiff’s Original Responses

to Request Nos. 3 and 4 contradicted her deposition testimony2. Relevant portions of Plaintiff’s

deposition testimony have been attached hereto as Exhibit B and are incorporated by reference herein.

Consequently, Defendant’s Counsel emailed a letter to Plaintiff’s Counsel on July 11, 2023, asking

Plaintiff to amend her contradictory Original Responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First

RFA (“Defendant’s First Letter”). A true and correct copy of Defendant’s First Letter is attached

hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated by reference herein. A true and correct copy of this email is

below and is incorporated by reference herein.

1
Please note, Defendant has served additional discovery requests on Plaintiff, to which Plaintiff has timely responded.
At this time, Defendant only seeks to compel Plaintiff to amend her Original Responses and her First Supplemental
Responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions.
2
Plaintiff was deposed on June 30, 2023. See Exhibit B.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 3
On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff served her First Supplemental Objections and Responses to

Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions (“Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Responses”). A true and

correct copy of Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant’s First

Requests for Admissions is attached hereto as Exhibit D and is incorporated by reference herein.

However, Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First RFA

continue to contradict Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff’s First Supplemental

Responses did not fully address Defendant’s Requests and provided additional irrelevant and evasive

information. Therefore, Defendant’s Counsel emailed Plaintiff’s Counsel another letter on August 18,

2023, requesting again that Plaintiff amend her First Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s First

RFA (“Defendant’s Second Letter”). A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Second Letter is attached

hereto as Exhibit E and is incorporated by reference herein. A true and correct copy of this email is

below and is incorporated by reference herein.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 4
On August 28, 2023, Counsel for Defendant subsequently followed up on Defendant’s

Second Letter after receiving no response from Plaintiff’s Counsel and after not being served with

additional supplemental or amended responses to Defendant’s First RFA. A true and correct copy of

this email is below and is incorporated by reference herein.

As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff has not served any additional supplemental or amended

responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First RFA. Plaintiff has also failed to respond to

Counsel for Defendant’s multiple letters and follow-up emails. Plaintiff’s First Supplemental

Responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First RFA remain contradictory and deficient for

the following reasons set forth below.

A. Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response to Request No. 3 of Defendant’s First
RFA includes additional irrelevant, evasive, and confusing information that was
not specifically requested.

A true and correct copy of Request No. 3 of Defendant First RFA, Plaintiff’s Original

Response, and Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response are below:

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 5
Exhibit D, p. 2. Notably, Plaintiff’s Original and First Supplemental Responses do not include any

objections to Defendant’s Request No. 3. Id.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response adds no supplemental

information. Her First Supplemental Response and Original Response to Request No. 3 are virtually

the same. Nevertheless, Request No. 3 of Defendant’s First RFA only asks Plaintiff to admit if a call

device was located in the bathroom she was in when she fell on June 15, 2020. See id. It does not ask

Plaintiff about whether she could reach the device or if she was aware of the device prior to her fall.

See id. Plaintiff’s Original and First Supplemental Responses to Request No. 3 of Defendant’s First

RFA do not “fairly meet the substance of the [R]equest” as required by the Rule governing Requests

for Admissions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(b).

Defendant has already communicated these issues to Plaintiff both in its First and Second

Letter. Exhibit C, p. 1; Exhibit E, p. 1. However, Plaintiff has not amended or supplemented her

First Supplemental Response to Request No. 3 of Defendant’s First RFA to correct such issues.

Therefore, Defendant requests this Court deem Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response to Request

No. 3 as admitted and compel Plaintiff to amend her First Supplemental Response to Request No. 3

to remove any additional irrelevant, evasive, and confusing information that is not specifically

requested by, and which does not meet the substance of Request No. 3 of Defendant’s First RFA.

B. Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response to Request No. 4 of Defendant’s First
RFA directly contradicts Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony and includes
additional irrelevant, evasive, and confusing information that was not
specifically requested.

A true and correct copy of Request No. 4 of Defendant First RFA, Plaintiff’s Original

Response, and Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response are below:

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 6
Exhibit D, p. 2. Notably, Plaintiff’s Original and First Supplemental Responses do not include any

objections to Defendant’s Request No. 4. Id.

Request No. 4 of Defendant’s First RFA does not ask Plaintiff to admit whether the call

emergency device was clearly visible and/or seen by Plaintiff when she initially sat down on the toilet.

See id. Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response to Request No. 4 of Defendant’s First RFA does not

“fairly meet the substance of the [R]equest” as required by the Rule governing Requests for

Admissions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(b).

Additionally, Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony clearly contradicts her First

Supplemental Response to Request No. 4, which states the call emergency device was too far to reach

while Plaintiff was on the toilet. Compare Exhibit D, p. 2 with Exhibit B, p. 6. However, in her

deposition, Plaintiff testified to the following:

Exhibit B, p. 6.

Defendant has already communicated these issues to Plaintiff in both its First and Second

Letter. Exhibit C, p. 1; Exhibit E, p. 2. However, Plaintiff has not amended or supplemented her

First Supplemental Response to Request No. 4 of Defendant’s First RFA to correct such issues.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 7
Therefore, Defendant requests this Court deem Plaintiff’s Response to Request No. 4 as admitted and

compel Plaintiff to amend her First Supplemental Response to Request No. 4 to admit the call device

was easily accessible to Plaintiff while she was on the toilet on June 15, 2020, which would be

consistent with Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony, and to remove any additional irrelevant,

evasive, and confusing information that is not specifically requested by, and which does not meet the

substance of Request No. 4 of Defendant’s First RFA.

III.
CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Original and First Supplemental Responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s

First Requests for Admissions include additional irrelevant and evasive information that was not

specifically requested by either Request and directly contradict Plaintiff’s sworn deposition

testimony. Defendant asks this Court deem Plaintiff’s Responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of

Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions as admitted and compel Plaintiff to amend her First

Supplemental Responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions to

remove any additional information not expressly requested and to amend her Response to Request

No. 4 to instead admit the Request.

Wherefore, Premises Considered, Defendant, Methodist Hospitals of Dallas d/b/a

Methodist Dallas Medical Center moves this Court to compel Plaintiff to amend her First

Supplemental Responses to Request Nos. 3 and 4 of Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions,

which were previously served on Defendant on August 10, 2023, and for such other and further

relief, both special and general, in law or in equity, to which Defendant may show itself justly

entitled.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 8
Respectfully submitted,

Kershaw Anderson King, PLLC

By:
Jennifer A. King
State Bar No. 24032632
jking@kaktxlaw.com
Sydney A. Ironside
State Bar No. 24125290
sironside@kaktxlaw.com

12400 Coit Road, Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75251
(214) 347-4993

Attorneys for Defendant, Methodist Hospitals of
Dallas d/b/a Methodist Dallas Medical Center

Certificate of Conference

Counsel for Defendant has attempted to confer with Counsel for Plaintiff as reflected above.
As described in more detail above, Counsel for Defendant emailed a letter to Plaintiff’s Counsel on
July 11, 2023, requesting Plaintiff amend her written Objections and Responses to Defendant’s First
Requests for Admissions. Counsel for Defendant subsequently sent a second letter on August 18,
2023, asking Plaintiff to amend her First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant’s First
Requests for Admissions for the same reasons expressed in the first letter. Counsel for Defendant
followed up via email on August 28, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has failed to amend and cure the
deficiencies in her Original and First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant’s First
Requests for Admissions. Counsel for Defendant has made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute
without the necessity of court intervention, as discussed in Defendant’s second letter, and the effort
failed. Therefore, it is presented to the Court for determination.

Jennifer A. King

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 9
Certificate Of Service

The undersigned hereby certifies a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was
served upon all attorneys of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this
1st day of September, 2023.

Jennifer A. King

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 10
Exhibit A
CAUSE NO. DC-22-06491

PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
§
v. § 193rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS §
d/b/a METHODIST DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

TO: DEFENDANT METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS, by and through its attorney
Jennifer King, Esq., KERSHAW ANDERSON KING, PLLC, 12400 Coit Road, Ste. 570,
Dallas, TX 75251.

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Pamela Sneed Roberts in the above entitled and numbered cause
and serve these Objections and Responses to Defendant Methodist Hospitals of Dallas’ First
Request for Admissions as attached.
Respectfully submitted,
CARBOY LAW FIRM

/s/ Colleen Carboy
Colleen Carboy, RN, JD
TX State Bar No. 10199650
2540 King Arthur Blvd., Suite 215
Lewisville, Texas 75056
P (972) 410-4200
F (972) 410-4201
CCarboy@TexasNurseAttorney.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of
record on this 5th day of July, 2023.

/s/ Colleen Carboy

PLAINTIFF PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT METHODIST HOSPITALS OF
DALLAS’ FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS - PAGE 1 OF 3
ANSWERS & OBJECTIONS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Raluchukwu Ogbazi, PT instructed Plaintiff
not to get up from the toilet without first calling for assistance prior to Plaintiff’s fall on June 15,
2020.

RESPONSE: This request is denied to the extent that the lady who left Plaintiff in the bathroom
unattended told her to call out when she was done and she followed the instruction.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Raluchukwu Ogbazi, PT told Plaintiff she
would need assistance to get up from the toilet prior to Plaintiff’s fall on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: This request is denied to the extent that the lady who left Plaintiff in the bathroom
unattended told her to call out when she was done and she followed the instruction.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that there was a call device located in the
bathroom Plaintiff was in when she fell on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that there was an emergency call cord located in the bathroom,
but it was too far to reach. After Plaintiff fell she noticed another one located behind her but was
unaware it was there until she was on the floor.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that this call device referenced in Request for
Admission No. 2 was easily accessible to Plaintiff when she was on the toilet on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: Denied

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that Plaintiff did not use the call device
referenced in Request for Admission No. 2 prior to getting up from the toilet on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she did not activate the emergency call cord until after her
fall.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Plaintiff did not use the call device
referenced in Request for Admission No. 2 until after she had fallen on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she did not activate the emergency call cord until after her
fall.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Raluchukwu Ogbazi, PT did not fully close
the bathroom door prior to Plaintiff’s fall on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that Plaintiff was able to weight bear on her left
lower extremity prior to her fall on June 15, 2020.

PLAINTIFF PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT METHODIST HOSPITALS OF
DALLAS’ FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS - PAGE 2 OF 3
RESPONSE: Admit that Plaintiff was able to put light weight on her leg prior to her fall.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that Plaintiff reported her left lower extremity
numbness was resolving prior to her fall on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she had some feeling in her left lower extremity, but reported
that it did not feel right and was wobbly.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that Plaintiff’s medical records indicate she fell
after attempting to stand up from the toilet without assistance on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because it does not specify a page number and/or
date, time or author so it is overbroad. Subject to this objection and without waiving same,
Plaintiff admits that on June 16, 2020, Berta Veloz recorded that I wrote that I fell after getting
up from the bathroom before being assisted since they took too long.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that Plaintiff’s medical records indicate there
was no loss of balance noted when Plaintiff ambulated to the bathroom on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because it does not specify a page number and/or
date, time or author so it is overbroad.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that Plaintiff’s medical records indicate she
was able to weight bear on her left lower extremity without buckling prior to her fall on June 15,
2020.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request because it does not specify a page number and/or
date, time or author so it is overbroad.

PLAINTIFF PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT METHODIST HOSPITALS OF
DALLAS’ FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS - PAGE 3 OF 3
Exhibit B
1
Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

·1· · · · · · · · · · · CAUSE NO. DC-22-06491
· ··
·2· · PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS,· · · ··) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· )
·3· · · · · ·· Plaintiff,· · · · ··)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· )
·4· · VS.· · · · · · · · · · · · ··) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· )
·5· · METHODIST HOSPITALS OF· · · ·)
· · · DALLAS D/B/A METHODIST· · · ·)
·6· · DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER,· · · ·)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· )
·7· · · · · ·· Defendant.· · · · ··) 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
· ··
·8· ·
· ··
·9· · ********************************************************
· ··
10· · · · · · · · ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
· ··
11· · · · · · · · · · · · PAMELA S. ROBERTS
· ··
12· · · · · · · · · · · ·· JUNE 30, 2023
· ··
13· · ********************************************************
· ··
14· ·
· ··
15· · · ·· ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PAMELA S. ROBERTS,
· ··
16· · produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendant,
· ··
17· · and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
· ··
18· · numbered cause on June 30, 2023, from 10:09 a.m. to 2:35
· ··
19· · p.m., before Lisa C. Flowers (Hundt), CSR, RPR, CLR in
· ··
20· · and for the State of Texas, reported by machine
· ··
21· · shorthand, at the law offices of Carboy Law Firm,
· ··
22· · located at 2540 King Arthur Boulevard, Suite 215,
· ··
23· · Lewisville, Texas, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
· ··
24· · Procedure and the provisions stated on the record or
· ··
25· · attached hereto.

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
2
Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

·1· · · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S
· ··
·2· ·FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
· ··
·3· · · ··Ms. Colleen Carboy
· · · · ··CARBOY LAW FIRM
·4· · · ··2540 King Arthur Boulevard
· · · · ··Suite 215
·5· · · ··Lewisville, Texas 75056
· · · · ··972.410.420
·6· · · ··972.410.4201 (Fax)
· · · · ··Ccarboy@texasnurseattorney.com
·7· ·
· · ·FOR THE DEFENDANT:
·8· ·
· · · · ··Ms. Sydney Ironside
·9· · · ··KERSHAW ANDERSON KING
· · · · ··12400 Coit Road
10· · · ··Suite 800
· · · · ··Dallas, Texas 75251
11· · · ··214.347.4993
· · · · ··Sironside@kaktxlaw.com
12· ·
· · ·ALSO PRESENT:··Mr. Thad Strobach, Videographer
13· ·
· ··
14· ·
· ··
15· ·
· ··
16· ·
· ··
17· ·
· ··
18· ·
· ··
19· ·
· ··
20· ·
· ··
21· ·
· ··
22· ·
· ··
23· ·
· ··
24· ·
· ··
25· ·

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
3
Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE

·3· ·Appearances..........................................··2

·4· ·Exhibits.............................................··4

·5· ·Stipulations.........................................··5

·6· ·PAMELA S. ROBERTS

·7· · · ··Examination by Ms. Ironside..................· ··5

·8· · · ··Examination by Ms. Carboy....................··140

·9· · · ··Further Examination by Ms. Ironside..........··165

10· · · ··Further Examination by Ms. Carboy............··172

11· ··Corrections Page................................· ·174

12· ··Reporter's Certificate..........................· ·176

13· ·

14· ·

15· ·

16· ·

17· ·

18· ·

19· ·

20· ·

21· ·

22· ·

23· ·

24· ·

25· ·

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
4
Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS
· ··
·2· ·NO.· ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
· ··
·3· ·Ex. 1· ··Notice of Intention to Take Oral
· · · · · · ··Deposition of Pamela Sneed Roberts and
·4· · · · · ··Subpoena Duces Tecum........................··7
· ··
·5· ·Ex. 2· ··Color Copy of Photos........................153
· ··
·6· ·Ex. 3· ··Color Copy of Photos........................156
· ··
·7· ·Ex. 4· ··Color Copy of Photos........................161
· ··
·8· ·
· ··
·9· ·
· ··
10· ·
· ··
11· ·
· ··
12· ·
· ··
13· ·
· ··
14· ·
· ··
15· ·
· ··
16· ·
· ··
17· ·
· ··
18· ·
· ··
19· ·
· ··
20· ·
· ··
21· ·
· ··
22· ·
· ··
23· ·
· ··
24· ·
· ··
25· ·

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
27
Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

10:33:10 ·1· · · · · · · · ··You're not required to guess if you don't

10:33:12 ·2· ·know.

10:33:12 ·3· · · ··A.· ·I don't.

10:33:12 ·4· · · · · · · · ··MS. CARBOY:··That's fine.

10:33:13 ·5· · · ··Q.· ·(BY MS. IRONSIDE)··And I understand this was a

10:33:16 ·6· ·long time ago.··So, I'm sorry, I'm just going through

10:33:19 ·7· ·the questions.

10:33:19 ·8· · · ··A.· ·That's okay.

10:33:23 ·9· · · ··Q.· ·Do you remember what shape the bathroom was?

10:33:27 10· · · ··A.· ·It was just a straight ahead.

10:33:29 11· · · ··Q.· ·Like a square or a rectangle?

10:33:32 12· · · ··A.· ·Square.

10:33:33 13· · · ··Q.· ·Were there any railings beside the toilet?

10:33:37 14· · · ··A.· ·No.

10:33:38 15· · · ··Q.· ·So no railings on the wall nearby or anything?

10:33:45 16· · · · · · · · ··MS. CARBOY:··Objection; form.

10:33:48 17· · · ··A.· ·I think it was one on the front wall, but it

10:33:52 18· ·was just a rail, I don't know.

10:33:53 19· · · ··Q.· ·(BY MS. IRONSIDE)··When you say "front wall,"

10:33:55 20· ·what do you mean?

10:33:55 21· · · ··A.· ·In front of the toilet.

10:33:57 22· · · ··Q.· ·Okay.··Was there a call device in the

10:34:01 23· ·bathroom?

10:34:02 24· · · ··A.· ·Yes; I found one.

10:34:04 25· · · ··Q.· ·What did it look like?

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
28
Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

10:34:05 ·1· · · ··A.· ·It was a white cord.

10:34:07 ·2· · · ··Q.· ·Where was this call device?

10:34:11 ·3· · · ··A.· ·There was one over in the shower, and then

10:34:14 ·4· ·there was -- when I looked behind me, there was one.

10:34:19 ·5· · · ··Q.· ·Where was it attached to?

10:34:24 ·6· · · ··A.· ·A wall.

10:34:25 ·7· · · ··Q.· ·Just the wall behind you on the toilet?

10:34:27 ·8· · · ··A.· ·No; the wall behind me in front of the toilet.

10:34:31 ·9· · · ··Q.· ·The wall in front of the toilet?

10:34:33 10· · · ··A.· ·[Nods head.]

10:34:34 11· · · ··Q.· ·Okay.··Was there one behind you?

10:34:37 12· · · ··A.· ·Not that I recall.

10:34:40 13· · · ··Q.· ·Was it attached to the wall in front of you

10:34:43 14· ·or, like, the ceiling in front of you?

10:34:45 15· · · ··A.· ·The wall.

10:34:49 16· · · ··Q.· ·Was there anything else around the call

10:34:52 17· ·device?

10:34:53 18· · · ··A.· ·No.

10:34:55 19· · · ··Q.· ·Could you reach this device if you were

10:34:59 20· ·sitting on the toilet?

10:35:00 21· · · ··A.· ·Yes.

10:35:04 22· · · ··Q.· ·What do you remember between the time you

10:35:09 23· ·arrived at your room and then when you were first --

10:35:12 24· ·when that lady came in to first wake you up?

10:35:17 25· · · ··A.· ·When I -- what I remember is her waking me up

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
176

Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

1 CAUSE NO. DC-22-06491

2 PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
)
3 PI a1ntiff )
)
4 VS. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
)
5 METHODIST HOSPITALS OF )
DALLAS D/B/A METHODIST )
6 DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER, )
)
7 Defendant. ) 193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
8

**************************** ****************************
9

10 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION

11 DEPOSITION OF PAMELA S. ROBERTS

12 JUNE 30, 2023

************************* *******************************
13

15 I, Lisa C. Flowers (Hundt), Certified Shorthand
16 Reporter in and for the State of Texas hereby certify

17 to the following:

18 That the witness PAMELA S. ROBERTS, was duly sworn

19 by the officer and that the transcript of the oral
20 deposition is a true record of the testimony given by
21 the witness;

22 That the deposition transcript was submitted on the
J.U
23 day of 2023 to the witness or

24 to the attorney for the witness for examination
+u
25 signature and return to me by the day of

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
177

Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

1 2023;

2 That the amount of time used by each party at the

3 deposition is as follows:

4 Ms. Colleen Carboy - 0 HOURS, 32 MINUTES
Ms. Sydney Ironside - 2 HOURS, 45 MINUTES
5

6 That pursuant to information given to the
7 Deposition officer at the time said testimony was taken,
8 the following includes counsel for all parties of
9 record:

10 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

11 Ms. Colleen Carboy
CARBOY LAW FIRM
12 2540 King Arthur Boulevard
Suite 215
13 Lewisvilie, Texas 75056
972.410.420
14 972.410.4201 (Fax)
Ccarboy@texasnurseattorney.com
15
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
16
Ms. Sydney Ironside
17 KERSHAW ANDERSON KING
12400 Coit Road
18 Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75251
19 214.347.4993
SironsideOkaktxlaw.com
20

21 I further certify that I am neither counsel for
22 related to nor employed by any of the parties or

23 attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was
24 taken and further that I am not financially or

25 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
178

Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

1 Further certification requirements pursuant to Rule

2 203 of TRCP will be certified to after they have

3 occurred.

4 Certified to by me this S' day of

5 2023.

d, !cLunJ:f-
9

11 LISA C. FLOWERS (HUNDT) CSR RPR, CLR
Texas CSR No. 6533
12 Expiration Date: 01/31/25

14 CORONA COURT REPORTING, INC.
Firm Registration No. 282
15 P.O. Box 191528
Dallas, Texas 75219
16 214.528.7912

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
174

Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

1 CHANGES AND SIGNATURE

2 WITNESS NAME: PAMELA S. ROBERTS DATE: JUNE 30, 2023

3 PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON

4 27:4

5 28:21

6 41:15-18

7 45:22

8 48:18-20

9 54:20-24

10 55:19-20

11 55:23-25

12 56:17-19

13 72:20

14 73:15-18

15 148:13-15

16 172:5-7

18 Pursuant to the request of the Defense attorney, I want to clarify and restate

19 that there were 2 emergency call devises in the bathroom. There was one in

20 the shower. After I fell I saw a 2nd emergency call devise on the wall

21 near the toilet, but I did not see it until after 1 fell and was on the floor.

24
nil ©
25

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
175

Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

1 I, PAMELA S. ROBERTS, have read the foregoing
deposition and hereby affix my signature that same is
2 true and correct, except as noted above.

5 PAMELA S. ROBERTS

7 THE STATE 0F^\^><2a^ i

8 COUNTY OfT^>^\Ca^ i
9

10 Before me on this day

11 personally appeared PAMELA S. ROBERTS, known to me (or
12 proved to me under oath or through
\
13 - (description of identity

14 card or other document)) to be the person whose name is
15 subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged

16 to me that they executed the same for the purposes and

17 consideration therein expressed.

18 Given under my hand and seal of office this

19 day of , 2023.

22
.c»-<

Quintina R Fict/ J
23 < My Commission THE STATE OF ,
8/18/2025
Notary ID (£:0MMISSI0N EXPIRES:
133276845
24

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
179

Pamela S. Roberts 6/30/2023

1 FURTHER CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 203 TRCP

2 The original deposition was/was not returned to the
3 deposition officer on

4 If returned the attached Changes and Signature page

5 contains any changes and the reasons therefor;
6 If returned the original deposition was delivered
7 to A4s- Custodial Attorney:

8 That ^ is the deposition officer's charges

9 to the Defendant for preparing the original deposition
10 transcript and any copies of exhibits;
11 That the deposition was delivered in accordance with
12 Rule 203.3 and that a copy of this certificate was

13 served on all parties shown herein on and filed with the
14 Clerk.

15 Certified to by me this lO day of

16 2023.

18
LISA C. FLOWERS (HUNDT), CSR, RPR, CLR
19 Texas CSR No. 6533
Expiration Date: 01/31/25
20

21
CORONA CdffRT REPORTING, INC.
22 Firm Registration No. 282
P.O. Box 191528
23 Dallas, Texas 75219
214.528.7912
24

Corona Court Reporting, Inc.
214.528.7912
CORONA COURT REPORTING
“Realtime to iPads*
PO Box 191528* Dallas, TX75219
214.S2».7ftl2(0) * 214.521.1313(7) ● 214.549.1732(C)
wwwxorQnacourtreportlng.com

DATE: g'- iO-ZoU?

Ms. Sydney Ironside
Kershaw Anderson, PLLC
12400 Colt Road
Suite 570
Dallas, TX 75251

RE: CAUSE NO. DC-22-06491; SNEED-ROBERTS v METHODIST

Dear Ms. Ironside

As regards the deposition of PAMELA SNEEE>-ROBERTS. taken on 6/30/2023. due to be
returned 8/4/2023 in the above-mentioned matter, please note the following:
Kj Original transcript enclosed
Original not returned

[/ Corrections/Changes pages attached
Corrections/Signature pages not returned
No changes and/or corrections were noted

[ ] Signature was waived
Witness did not sign
b/ Signature was notarized

Signature was not notarized

Reporter’s Certificate attached

Please contact our office if you have any questions or if we can be of further service.

Sincerely,

/S/Muhammed (Mo) Jallow
Corona Court Reporting
Exhibit C
KERSHAW ANDERSON KING, PLLC
WHEN IT MATTERS

Jennifer A. King, Member
Direct: 214.817.0233
jking@kaktxlaw.com

July 11, 2023

Via E-mail
Colleen Carboy
Carboy Law Firm
2540 King Arthur Blvd., Suite 215
Lewisville, Texas 75056
ccarboy@texasnurseattorney.com
klewis@texasnurseattorney.com

Re: Cause No. DC-22-06491; Pamela Sneed Roberts v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas
d/b/a Methodist Dallas Medical Center; Request for Amendment of Plaintiff’s
Responses to Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions and Verification of
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Answers.

Dear Ms. Carboy:

This letter is intended to request the verification of Plaintiff’s answers to Defendant,
Methodist Hospitals of Dallas d/b/a Methodist Dallas Medical Center’s (“Defendant”) First,
Second, and Third Set of Interrogatories, as well as any supplemental answers thereto, and for the
amendment of Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions. Please inform
Defendant as to whether Plaintiff intends to provide the requested verifications and amend her
responses to Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions as requested in this letter.
AMENDMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Request No. 4 of Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions requested Plaintiff admit that
the call device located in the bathroom Plaintiff was in when she fell on June 15, 2020, was easily
accessible to Plaintiff when she was on the toilet on June 15, 2020. Plaintiff denied Request for
Admission No 4. However, during Plaintiff’s deposition, she testified she could reach this call
device if she was sitting on the toilet. Please amend Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 4
accordingly. Additionally, Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 3 states the call device was too far
to reach. Please amend Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 3 as well to remove this statement,
which contradicts Plaintiff’s deposition testimony.

MAIN OFFICE AUSTIN OFFICE
12400 Coit Road, Suite 570 5113 Southwest Parkway, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75251 Austin, Texas 78735
214.347.4993 512.400.0334
Fax: 214.615.7361
www.kershawandersonking.com
Ms. Carboy
July 11, 2023
Page 2

VERIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORY ANSWERS
Plaintiff’s answers to Defendant’s First, Second, and Third Set of Interrogatories to
Plaintiff have not been verified, nor are Plaintiff’s supplemental answers. Please provide Plaintiff’s
verification for each set of Interrogatory answers.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Should you have any questions or need
anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Kershaw Anderson King, PLLC

Jennifer King
Jennifer A. King

JK:si
Exhibit D
CAUSE NO. DC-22-06491

PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
§
v. § 193rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS §
d/b/a METHODIST DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

TO: DEFENDANT METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS, by and through its attorney
Jennifer King, Esq., KERSHAW ANDERSON KING, PLLC, 12400 Coit Road, Ste. 570,
Dallas, TX 75251.

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Pamela Sneed Roberts in the above entitled and numbered cause
and serve these First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendant Methodist Hospitals
of Dallas’ First Request for Admissions as attached.
Respectfully submitted,
CARBOY LAW FIRM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of
record on this 10th day of August, 2023.

/s/ Colleen Carboy

PLAINTIFF PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS’ FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS - PAGE 1 OF 3
ANSWERS & OBJECTIONS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Raluchukwu Ogbazi, PT instructed Plaintiff
not to get up from the toilet without first calling for assistance prior to Plaintiff’s fall on June 15,
2020.

RESPONSE: This request is denied to the extent that the lady who left Plaintiff in the bathroom
unattended told her to call out when she was done and she followed the instruction.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Raluchukwu Ogbazi, PT told Plaintiff she
would need assistance to get up from the toilet prior to Plaintiff’s fall on June 15, 2020.

RESPONSE: This request is denied to the extent that the lady who left Plaintiff in the bathroom
unattended told her to call out when she was done and she followed the instruction.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that there was a call device located in the
bathroom Plaintiff was in when she fell on June 15, 2020.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that there was an emergency call
cord located in the bathroom, but it was too far to reach. After Plaintiff fell she noticed it was
located behind her but was unaware it wa

Case Info

Judge

WHITMORE, BRIDGETT Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 01, 2023

Case Filing Date

June 15, 2022

County

Parties

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

Motion,Ex Parte: PAMELA SNEED ROBERTS vs. METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties