Motion to Strike Initial Pleading in VASHONE RHODES vs. JAMES GOMEZ, et al| Trellis.Law

On August 02, 2019 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Rhodes, Vashone, and Exclusive Nationwide Delivery, Inc, Gomez, James, for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
4/1 0/2020 10:35 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO.,TEXAS
Kellie Juricek DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-1 9-1 0926

VASHONE RHODES; IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff,

VS. WWWWWWWWW
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

JAMES GOMEZ;

Defendant. 160T” JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF
ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D.

Plaintiff VASHONE RHODES moves to strike Defendant’s Counter—Affidavits of

Roger Clifford, D.C. and Lennard A. Nadalo, M.D., for failure to fully comply with the

conditions of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001 (f).

l. BACKGROUND & SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This lawsuit arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on November 27,

2018, in Desoto, Texas. Plaintiff Vashone Rhodes was operating his vehicle on I-35E and

had stopped for traffic ahead, when Defendant James Gomez rear—ended his vehicle.

As a result of the collision, Mr. Rhodes was injured and required medical care.

Following treatment, he produced affidavits from his medical providers attesting to the

reasonable charges for his necessary medical treatment. These affidavits support a

finding at trial that the treatment was necessary and the charges were reasonable,

pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001 (b).

Defendants have responded with the Counter—Affidavits of Roger Clifford, D.C. and

Lennard A. Nadalo, M.D. See Clifford Affidavit, attached as Exhibit A, and Nadalo

Affidavit, attached as Exhibit B. These Affidavits, however, fail to satisfy the “reasonable

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. — Page 1
notice” condition of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001 (f). As such, the Court

should strike the Counter—Affidavits of Dr. Clifford and Dr. Nadalo from use in this cause.

l|. SECTION 18.001 & THE HEAW BURDEN PLACED ON COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.0011 provides the following exception

to the hearsay rule for proving up medical bills:

Unless a controverting served as provided by this section, an
affidavit is
affidavit that the for a service was reasonable at
amount a person charged
the time and place that the service was provided and that the service was
necessary is sufficient evidence to support a finding of fact by judge orjury
that the amount charged was reasonable or that the service was necessary.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 18.001(b).

To challenge a plaintiff’s initial section 18.001 affidavits, any counter—affidavit must

comply with subsection (f), as follows:

The counteraffidavit must give reasonable notice of the basis on which the
party servinqintends to controvert the claim reflected bv the initial affidavit
it

and must be taken before a person authorized to administer oaths. The
counteraffidavit must be made by a person who is qualified, by knowledge,
skill, experience, training, education, or other expertise, to testify in
contravention of all or part of any of the matters contained in the initial

affidavit.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §18.001(f)(emphasis added).

According to the Dallas court of appeals in Turner v. Peril, “[s]ection 18.001

provides a significant savings of time and cost to litigants, particularly in personal injury

cases, by providing a means to prove up the reasonableness and necessity of medical

expenses.” Turner v. Peril, 50 S.W.3d 742, 746 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

1
Section 18.001was amended in the last legislative session. See Act ofJune 10, 2019, 86th Leg.,
R.S., H.B. 1693, ch. 779 (amending Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 18.001). Because this lawsuitwas filed
prior to the effective date of the amendments, the prior version of section 18.001 applies here. See Act of
June 14, 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., ch. 560, 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws 1507 (amended 2019) (current version at
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 18.001). All citations to section 18.001 are to that version ofthe statute.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. — Page 2
Thus, “section 18.001 places a greater burden of proof on counter affidavits to discourage

their misuse in a manner that frustrates the intended savings.” Id. at 747.

III. GROUNDS FOR STRIKING COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF
ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C.

Dr. Clifford states that his Counter-Affidavit is made in response to the initial

affidavit of Premier Injury Clinics. Exhibit A, p. 1. To that end, he opines “that the health

care treatment and numerous procedures and charges, as indicated in [his report], are

neither reasonable, necessary nor justified by the condition as described by said medical

reports.” Exhibit A, p. 1-2. But as will be shown herein, such opinions are either immaterial

or merely conclusory. Further, the court of appeals in Turner v. Peril has made it clear

that conclusory statements are not effective to controvert initial section 18.001 affidavits.

See Turner, 50 S.W.3d at 748 (concluding that counteraffidavits were deficient because

they “either obscure his basis for controverting the affidavits filed by Turner or conceal

the absence of any basis.”).

A. Dr. Clifford’s challenge to the adequacy of the medical documentation
to support causation is immaterial to the relevant inquiries under
Section 18.001.

In his report, Dr. Clifford begins by challenging all of the services of Premier Injury

Clinics as medically unnecessary because of deficiencies he perceives with the

chiropractor’s documentation. See Exhibit A, at report, p. 4-5. In particular, he states that

The documentation lacks details about the motor vehicle accident, and contains no

reported mechanism of injury to explain how the Plaintiff’s complaints were related to the

11-17-18 car accident. See Exhibit A, at report, p. 4. However, it is immaterial whether

the documentation met standards set out by the American Chiropractic Association

Clinical Documentation Manual, as the only relevant inquiries are whether the services

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 3
were necessary to treat the patient and the charges for those services were reasonable.

If Dr. Clifford cannot render an opinion due to a lack of documentation, he should have

stated as much instead of rejecting the treatment altogether.

Moreover, the issue of whether the services provided were done so as a proximate

cause of the collision with Defendant, is also immaterial. It is well settled that section

18.001 affidavits filed by an injured plaintiff do not establish that the costs associated with

treatment were caused by a defendant's actions or that the plaintiff is entitled to those

costs as a matter of law. Atwood v. Pietrowicz, No. 02-10-00010-CV, 2010 WL 4261600,

at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 28, 2010, no pet.); see also Paz v. Molina, No. 14-11-

00664-CV, 2012 WL 2466578, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 28, 2012, no

pet.)(mem. opinion). Indeed, courts repeatedly concur that an affidavit concerning

reasonableness and necessity submitted under Section 18.001 does not establish a

causal nexus between the injury and medical expenses. Wald Tinkle Packaging &

Distribution, Inc. v. Pinok, No. 01-02-01100-CV, 2004 WL 2966293, at *9 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2004, no pet.); Sloan v. Molandes, 32 S.W.3d 745, 752 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.); Beauchamp v. Hambrick, 901 S.W.2d 747, 749 (Tex.

App.—Eastland 1995, no writ)). To be consistent, if an initial affidavit submitted pursuant

to Section 18.001 has no bearing on causation, a controverting affidavit cannot be based

on a purported lack of causation. Consequently, in the current version of section 18.001,

the Legislature clarified that a counter-affidavit “may not be used to controvert the

causation element of the cause of action that is the basis for the civil action.” See Tex.

Civ. Prac. &. Rem. Code § 18.001(f) (eff. 9/1/19). For these reasons, Dr. Clifford’s

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 4
statements about the adequacy of documentation and causation are not effective to

controvert the initial affidavit of Premier Injury Clinics.

B. Dr. Clifford does not provide reasonable notice of his basis for saying
that only 10 visits to a chiropractor would be necessary.

While not conceding that any services by Premier Injury Clinics were necessary,

Dr. Clifford adds:

[E]ven if an assumption is made with no support of documentation that
some of the services would have been necessary, not all of the services
would have been necessary. Only up to the 10 visits provided until 12-12-
18 would have been necessary. The overall course of care provided
including number of visits, frequency of care, and duration of care was
excessive and out of proportion to the injuries sustained if any. Most of the
chiropractic records showed no objective findings to support that injuries
were sustained or that services being rendered were necessary.

Exhibit A, at report p. 6.

To justify his conclusion, he adds that (a) failing to provide x-rays is inconsistent

with the claimant sustaining “significant injuries,” (b) there were no neurological deficets,

i.e. evidence of radiculopathy based on the x-rays, (c) people who treat more recover

slower than those who treat less, (d) studies have not identified effective treatments for

acute or chronic symptoms from whiplash, (e) there is no association between minor

trauma and adverse low back illness, (f) re-examination of the patient showed no

objective evidence of functional improvement, and (g) hot/cold packs should have been

administered at home.

First, it is pure speculation that x-rays were not taken because Mr. Rhodes’s

injuries were not serious. One cannot get into the mind of Plaintiff’s chiropractor to know

why he would or would not initially order x-rays.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 5
Second, Dr. Clifford urges that the x-rays taken showed the absence of

neurological injury. Whether this a contradiction of his earlier statement that there were

no x-rays, or whether he is saying x-rays taken at a later point prove his hypothesis is

simply unclear. If he is saying the chiropractor should have known from x-rays taken later

that there was no sign of radiculopathy upon Plaintiff’s initial presentation to the

chiropractor, this would be absurd. Further, even with evidence of an absence of

radiculopathy, Dr. Clifford fails to explain why this would rule out the need for more than

10 visits to the chiropractor.

Third, citing sources that say more treatment is better than less, is too non-specific

to give any notice to Plaintiff regarding why 10 chiropractic sessions (and only 10

sessions) was the reasonable number for his care. Likewise, stating that studies do not

show it is helpful to treat chronic whiplash does not explain why 10 sessions is the magic

number of chiropractic sessions to be reasonable.

Fourth, opining that there is no association between minor trauma (which he

assumes) and adverse low back problems, is not helpful in informing Plaintiff why he

should have only had 10 and no more chiropractic treatments.

Fifth, even if it is true that there were no objective signs that Plaintiff was improving

with chiropractic treatment, this does not explain why 10 treatments were reasonable, but

any more were not.

Sixth, rejecting the need for in-office hot/cold packs is not a challenge to the

service. It is only a challenge to the charge. If Dr. Clifford felt that Plaintiff should not have

been charged for hot/cold packs in the office, when he needed them for treatment, he

should have provided an explanation for this opinion.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 6
For these reasons, Dr. Clifford’s opinions are conclusory, or otherwise fails to

provide Plaintiff reasonable notice of the basis for controverting the initial affidavit of

Premier Injury Clinics, in violation of Section 18.001(f).

C. Dr. Clifford’s opinions about the charges of Premier Injury Clinics are
mere ipse dixit.

Addressing the charges of Premier Injury Clinics, Dr. Clifford opines:

EMS expenses were $55.00, but only up to $30.00 would have been
reasonable.

New patient exam expenses were $295.00, but only up to $140.00 would
have been reasonable.

Mechanical traction expenses were $55.00, but only up to $30.00 would
have been reasonable.

None of the expenses for massage therapy, therapeutic procedures, and
manual therapy were reasonable. The chiropractic billing for those services
was not supported by the chiropractic records as required by the Texas
Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The chiropractic treatment records were
below the standard of chiropractic care in this region and failed to follow the
required documentation guidelines such as the AMA CPT Coding Manual;
therefore, none of those expenses for those services were reasonable. The
minimal documentation thresholds were not reached. The chiropractic
billing was not supported by the chiropractic records and therefore none of
the expenses for these services were reasonable. Detailed description was
not documented. The treatment records fell below the standard of
chiropractic care and did not meet the minimal documentation
requirements.

Re-examination expenses were $125.00, but only up to $60.00 would have
been reasonable.

Spinal manipulation expenses were $70.00, but only up to $50.00 would
have been reasonable.

Nine EMS treatments $30.00 each, totaled $270.00; 2 mechanical tractions
$30.00 each, totaled $60.00. Including 1 re-examination for $60.00, 1 spinal
manipulation for $50.00, and the new patient examination for $140.00, no
more than $580.00 would have been reasonable.

Exhibit A, at report p. 10.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 7
In these paragraphs, Dr. Clifford generally rejects various line item charges and

offers up different amounts that he thinks should have been charged or would have been

reasonable. Although he cites to the CPT code book and says that chiropractors must bill

in accordance with the standards set out therein, he fails to explain how any of Premier

Injury Clinics’ billing procedures fail to meet the standards. Moreover, Dr. Clifford fails to

cite any reference or source he used to determine the amounts that should have been

charged. He also fails to explain why the amounts actually charged would not be

considered reasonable for the local geographic area. He broadly urges that supporting

documentation for the chiropractic billing is lacking; but he does not even identify the

documents he is talking about. Nor does he discuss how alleged deficiencies in

documentation are even relevant to the reasonableness of amounts charged for

chiropractic services that were indisputably provided.

A claim will not stand or fall on the mere ipse dixit of a credentialed witness. Burrow

v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 235 (Tex. 1999). As noted by the Texas Supreme Court in

Burrow, even if credentials qualify a person to offer opinions, those credentials do not

supply the basis for those opinions. Id. at 236. “The opinions must have a reasoned basis

which the expert, because of his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, is

qualified to state.” Id. That basis is absent in this case. Dr. Clifford leaves Plaintiff

guessing about why the amounts he was charged by Premier Injury Clinics for various

services were unreasonable.

In sum, whether he is discussing the necessity of treatment or the reasonableness

of Plaintiff’s medical bills, Dr. Clifford’s Counter-Affidavit either obscures the basis for his

opinions, or conceals the absence of any basis. Therefore, the Court should strike Dr.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 8
Clifford’s Counter-Affidavit from use at trial to controvert Plaintiff’s initial Section 18.001

affidavit from Premier Injury Clinics.

IV. GROUNDS FOR STRIKING COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF
LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D.

Lennard A. Nadalo, M.D. is a radiologist retained by Defendant to controvert the

initial affidavits of MRI Centers of Texas, Dallas Radiology, URA/Uptown Radiology

Associates, and Prime Diagnostic Imaging/Prime Imaging Partners. Exhibit B, p. 2. To

that end, he opines exactly like Dr. Clifford “that the health care treatment and numerous

procedures and charges, as indicated in [his report], are neither reasonable, necessary

nor justified by the condition as described by said medical reports.” Exhibit B, p. 2. But as

shown herein, Dr. Nadalo’s opinions are merely conclusory.

A. Dr. Nadalo’s opinions regarding the charges of Plaintiff’s medical
providers are conclusory.

MRI Centers of Texas, according to Dr. Nadalo, charged as follows:

12/04/2018 CERVICAL - X-RAY 4 VIEWS OR MORE 72050 210.00
12/04/2018 Thoracic Spine X-Rays AP and Lateral 72070 156.00
12/04/2018 Lumbar Spine X-Rays AP and Lateral 72100 180.00
12/04/2018 SHOULDER, X-RAYS - MINIMUM TWO VIEWS 73030 198.00
…
12/18/2018 UPPER EXTREMITY ANY JOING MRI W/O Contrast $2295.00

Exhibit B, at report, p. 3, 5.

Dr. Nadalo disagrees with the cervical X-ray charge because it “greatly exceeded

the cost of available outpatient X-ray studies of the cervical spine, which when performed

on a walk-in cash basis in the DFW region, are available for $50-60.” Exhibit B, at report,

p. 3. He reached this opinion based on a “series of telephone surveys” he performed.

However, he fails to to show why under the circumstances, and based on the location

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 9
and expenses of the provider, $210 was an excessive charge, even if it is higher than

what another provider charges.

Dr. Nadalo’s opinions about the thoracic X-ray, lumbar spine X-ray, and shoulder

X-rays performed at MRI Centers of Texas are similar. He disagrees with the amounts

charged because it greatly exceeds the walk-in price of $50-60 for the DFW region. See

Exhibit B, at report, p. 4-5. However, he fails to explain why it was unreasonable for MRI

Centers of Texas to charge $156 for the thoracic X-ray, $180 for the lumbar spine X-ray,

or $198 for two shoulder X-rays, even if another facility may charge a lesser amount.

Dr. Nadalo then rejects the reasonableness of shoulder MRIs, stating that the

$2,395.00 charge exceeded the cost of available outpatient MRI of the shoulder, which

when performed on a cash basis, in the DFW region are available for $350-$600. Exhibit

B, at report, p. 5. Again, he fails to show why under the circumstances, and based on the

location and expenses of the provider, $22,395.00 was an excessive charge, even if

another provider would accept a lower amount.

Turning to the services of Uptown Radiology Associates, Dr. Nadalo concludes

that the following was not reasonable:

12/18/2018 Interpretation of UPPER EXTREMITY ANY JOINT MRI W/O Contrast
Shoulder Uptown Radiology Associates $595.00

Exhibit B, at report, p. 6.

Dr. Nadalo disagrees with the charge for the shoulder MRI, familiarly, because it

“greatly exceeded the cost of available outpatient MRI of the shoulder interpretation,

which when performed on a walk-in cash basis in the DFW region, are available for $50-

60.” Exhibit B, at report, p. 5. However, Dr. Nadalo fails to show why under the

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 10
circumstances, and based on the location and expenses of the provider, $595 was an

excessive charge, even if it is higher than the charge of another provider.

According to Dr. Nadalo, Prime Diagnostic Imaging performed another MRI to the

shoulder (without contrast), as follows:

02/26/2019 UPPER EXTREMITY ANY JOINT MRI W/O Contrast Shoulder $1993.00

His opinion is that this charge is not reasonable because one can obtain such a

scan on a cash basis in the DFW region for $350-$600. See Exhibit B, at report, p. 6.

However, he does explain why it was unreasonable for Prime Diagnostic Imaging to

charge $1,993, even if the price might be lower from another facility.

Finally, Dr. Nadalo addresses the following charges of Dallas Radiology:

12/4/2018 C-SPINE XRAY MIN 4V 7205026 105.00
12/4/2018 T-SPINE XRAY 2V 7207026 100.00
12/4/2018 L-SPINE XRAY2-3V 7210026 100.00
12/4/2018 SHOULDER XRAY2V Lt 7303026 100.00

Exhibit B, at report, p. 7.

He rejects the reasonableness of each of these charges, again, because he

believes they greatly exceed the cost of available outpatient services obtained on a cash

basis, based on his telephone surveys. See Exhibit B, at report, p. 7-9. He believes each

of these services could be obtained for between $40-50; but he fails to show why the

amounts Dallas Radiology charged must be considered unreasonable even if somewhat

higher than what some other providers charge.

Ultimately, Dr. Nadalo provides no information from which the Court can verify the

source of Dr. Nadalo’s conclusory opinions regarding the charges of Plaintiff’s medical

providers. He either obscures the basis for his opinions or conceals the absence of any

basis at all.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 11
B. Dr. Nadalo fails to provide a basis or rejecting Plaintiff’s need for
radiology services.

Not only does Dr. Nadalo challenge the charges for Plaintiff’s radiology services,

he concludes that none of the X-rays of the spine and shoulder, and none of the shoulder

MRI examinations, were justified. See Exhibit B, at report, p. 9. Specifically, he states that

the need for these services was “not justified by the nature of the accident,” nor was the

need for the studies supported by findings described in the associated written report.

Exhibit B, p. 3-9.

Dr. Nadalo fails to provide any basis whatsoever for his opinions that radiology

services were not justified by the nature of the accident. Indeed, he relies on these very

X-rays and MRI studies to reach his conclusion that there was no evidence of an injury

from the accident. See Exhibit B, at report, p. 11. If there were findings described in the

associated reports that would rule out the need for X-rays and MRIs, it was Dr. Nadalo’s

obligation to identify them. Instead, his report to either obscures the basis of his opinions,

or to conceals the absence of any basis at all.

In sum, Dr. Nadalo fails to provide reasonable notice to Plaintiff of the basis for

challenging his initial affidavits of MRI Centers of Texas, Dallas Radiology, URA/Uptown

Radiology Associates, and Prime Diagnostic Imaging/Prime Imaging Partners, in violation

of Section 18.001(f). Accordingly, Plaintiff asks that the Court strike Dr. Nadalo’s Counter-

Affidavit from use in this cause.

V. CONCLUSION & PRAYER

Allowing the Counter-Affidavits of Dr. Clifford and Dr. Nadalo to controvert the

initial affidavits of Mr. Rhodes’s medical providers without requiring strict compliance with

the reasonable notice condition of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001(f),

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. – Page 12
would frustrate the savings intended by the statute. Therefore, to promote the legislative

intent of making it efficient to prove—up a claimant’s medical bills, this Court should strike

these Counter-Affidavits, in their entirety.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff VASHONE RHODES

respectfully prays that the Court grant his motion to strike, and award him such other and

further relief t0 which he may be justly entitled, whether at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

EBERSTEIN & WITHERITE, LLP

BY: glmﬂg
ﬁmE
v1 ELDRﬁbGE
State Bar No. 24096747
paiqe.eldridqe@ewlawvers.com
AMY K. WITHERITE
State Bar No. 00788698
amv.witherite@ewlawvers.com
10440 N. Central Expressway
Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75231-2228
21 4/378-6665
21 4/378-6670 (fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Dallas County District Court Local Rule 2.07, on February 4, 2020,
counsel emailed defense counsel regarding the filing of this Motion. Defense
Plaintiff’s

counsel is opposed to the filing of this Motion. Therefore, it is presented to the Court for

@m%
determination.

v. §ai§eildrid¢§

Adam LeCrone
B.
The LeCrone Law Firm, P.C.
Wall Street Plaza, 123 N. Crockett Street, Suite 200
Sherman, TX 75090

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. — Page 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded
|

to all counsel of record on this 10th day of April, 2020 pursuant to the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.

”WW
v. Péﬁge Eldrid’ge

Adam LeCrone
B.
The LeCrone Law Firm, P.C.
Wall Street Plaza, 123 N. Crockett Street, Suite 200
Sherman, TX 75090

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF ROGER CLIFFORD,
D.C. AND LENNARD A. NADALO, M.D. — Page 14
Contains
Contains Sensitive
Sensitive Data
CAUSE NO. DC-19-10926

VASHONE RHODES
VASHONE §§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§
V.
v. §§
§§ 16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
JAMES GOMEZ g §
§§ DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT'S
DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
COUNTER—AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO
T0 SECTION 18.001
18.001
OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICES & REMEDIES CODE
RE: MEDICAL AFFIDAVITS

STATE OF TEXAS §
KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, the
the undersigned
undersigned authority,
authority, a
a notary
notary public
public in
in and for
for the
the State
State of Texas,
Texas,

on this
this day
day personally appeared Roger Clifford,
personally appeared Clifford, D.C.,
D.C., D.A.C.N.B.,
D.A.C.N.B., who being
being by
by me first
ﬁrst duly
duly

sworn upon his
his oath,
oath, deposed
deposed as
as stated:
stated:

“My name is
"My is Roger Clifford,
Clifford, D.C.,
D.C., D.A.C.N.B. II am a a licensed
licensed Doctor of Chiropractic
Chiropractic inin
the
the County of Dallas,
Dallas, State
State of
of Texas.
Texas. II am boardboard certified
certiﬁed by by the
the American Chiropractic
Chiropractic
Neurology Board.
Boaxd. (See
(See Curriculum
Curriculum Vitae,
Vitae, attached
attached hereto
hereto as as Exhibit
Exhibit 'A,''A,‘ incorporated
incorporated herein
herein for
for
all
all purposes.)
purposes.) I
I am a
a member of the Texas Chiropractic Association,
of the Texas Chiropractic Association, the the American Chiropractic
Chiropractic
Association,
Association, and thethe ACA Council
Council on Neurology.·
Neurology. II am over
'

over 1818 years
years of age,
age, of sound mind,
mind, and
make this
this affidavit
afﬁdavit upon my best best information
information and belief.
belief. II state
state that
that Il am qualified
qualiﬁed byby knowledge,
knowledge,
skill,
skill, experience,
experience, training,
training, education
education andand other
other expertise
expertise toto make the the statements
statements contained
contained in
in this
this
affidavit
afﬁdavit and II am fully
fully competent
competent to to testify
testify to
to the
the matters
matters stated
stated herein.
herein. My Texas license
license is
is

5539 II have treated
treated nwnerous
numerous patients
patients in
in the
the field
ﬁeld of
of chiropractic
chiropractic care,care, specifically
speciﬁcally relating
relating to
to
pain management and independent
independent medical
medical reviews
reviews andand exams for for 2525 years.
years. II am certified
certiﬁed inin
impairment ratings.
ratings. Il have performed
performed numerous record
record reviews
reviews and
and served
served as
as an expert
expert witness
witness
for
for both plaintiffs
plaintiffs and defendants
defendants in in Dallas
Dallas County
County and throughout
throughout the the State
State of Texas.
Texas. II am
familiar
familiar with reasonable
reasonable and customary
customary charges
charges forfor evaluation
evaluation and and treatment
treatment thereof
thereof inin Dallas
Dallas
County and throughout
throughout the
the State
State of Texas."
Texas.”

"This
“This counter-affidavit
counter-afﬁdavit is
is made pursuant to §
pursuant to 18.001 of the
§18.001 the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICES &
REMEDIES CODE and is is made in
in response
response toto the
the following
following affidavits
afﬁdavits and/or
and/or records
records pertaining
pertaining to
to
PlaintiffVashone
Plaintiff Vashone Rhodes which areare attached
attached hereto
hereto as
as Exhibit
Exhibit 'B':
‘B’:

1.
1. Premier
Premier Injury
Injury Clinics.
Clinics.

"Such
“Such affidavits
afﬁdavits state
state as
as a
a purported
purported fact
fact that
that the
the services
services outlined
outlined on
on attachments
attachments thereto
thereto
were necessary
necessary and that
that the
the charges
charges for
for said
said services
services were reasonable;
reasonable; however,
however, II have reviewed
the
the medical and billing
billing records
records attached
attached to
to the
the above-referenced
above-referenced affidavits
afﬁdavits and
and it
it is
is my opinion,
Opinion,

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
COUNTER—AFFIDAVIT OF
0F ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C.,
D.C., D.A.C.N.B.
D.A.C.N.B. Page 1l
l10001.14942/emonslvais
0001.14942/emonsivais
EXHIBIT
exhibitsticker.com

"A"
based
based on my training,
training, experience
experience and
and expertise
expertise that
that the
the health
health care
care treatment
treatment andand numerous
numerous
procedures
procedures and
and charges, as indicated
charges, as indicated inin my report dated October 28. 2019. are neither reasonable,
report dated October 28. 201 9. are neither reasonable,
necessary
necessary nor
nor justified
justiﬁed byby the
the condition
condition asas described by said
described by said medical
medical reports.
reports. Please
Please see
see the
the true
true
and
and correct copy of
correct copy of the
the report
report which
which isls attached
attached to
to this
this counter-affidavit
counter—afﬁdavit a,ntl
arm incorporated
incorporated herein
herein
by reference as Exhibit ‘C’. ”

Further Afﬁant sayeth not.

If:

/1
V
I
I

ROGER CL
/
FORD, D.
CLiFFom); 11C,., D.A C
I

Case Info

Judge

REDMOND, AIESHA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 10, 2020

Case Filing Date

August 02, 2019

County

Parties

BREEZE, JOHNNY W Attorney for the Defendant
ELDRIDGE, V. PAIGE Attorney for the Plaintiff
EXCLUSIVE NATIONWIDE DELIVERY, INC Defendant
GOMEZ, JAMES Defendant
HOLCOMB, RHONDA D Attorney for the Defendant
LAIRD, PAUL CRAIG Attorney for the Defendant
LECRONE, ADAM B Attorney for the Defendant
RHODES, VASHONE Plaintiff
WALTERS, RANDALL G Attorney for the Defendant
WEATHERALL, NADINE K Attorney for the Defendant
William Schultz Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Vivian Eldridge Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Shelly Greco Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David Kennedy Attorney
Amy Witherite Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Mark Teague Attorneys for Defendants
Hillary Clark Attorneys for Defendants
Alexandria Carpenter Attorneys for Defendants
Blaise Wilcott Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Kelly Attorneys for Defendants
Trevor Beaty Attorneys for Defendants
Selene Peña Attorneys for Defendants
Molly Kaelin Attorneys for Defendants
Mark Humphrey Attorneys for Defendants
Ashanti Baker Attorneys for Defendants
John Merritt Attorneys for Defendants
Rhonda Denton Attorney
Megan Andrus Attorneys for Defendants

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

Motion,Ex Parte: VASHONE RHODES vs. JAMES GOMEZ, et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties