Preview
FILED
7/30/2021 11:28 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Darling Tellez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-08056
SHIRLEY RICHMOND, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE §
ESTATE OF NATHANIEL RICHMOND, §
DECEASED §
§
v. § 0F DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND §
UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, §
PLLC § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND
UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S
ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
Come now Vairavan Subramanian, M.D., and Urology Clinics of North Texas, P.L.L.C.,
two of the Defendants in the above entitled and numbered cause, and make and file this, their
Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and would respectfully show unto this honorable
Court as follows:
I.
MOTION FOR LEVEL 3 DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Plaintiff states that she intends discovery be conducted under Level 3 of the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure. Defendants agrees with the Plaintiffs designation and request the Court enter
a Level 3 Scheduling Order accordingly. To that end, Defendants’ counsel will draft a proposed
Scheduling Order and will circulate among all counsel and will then submit same to the Court as
an Agreed Scheduling Order or will request Court intervention on matters that cannot be agreed
upon.
DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS,
P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 1
S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx
II.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
1. Defendants specially except to Plaintiffs Original Petition, in its entirety, for the
reason that said Petition fails to set forth the maximum amount in controversy sought herein
informally in writing. Pursuant to section 74.053 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code,
Defendants request the Court enter an order requiring Plaintiff to notify Defendants, by
correspondence not to be filed with the Court, of the maximum amount in controversy herein.
2. Defendants object and specially except to Plaintiff s Original Petition, and
specifically the reference to “Medical Negligence and Gross Negligence” for each Defendant and
any other reference in Plaintiff‘s Petition regarding gross negligence, exemplary damages, and/or
punitive damages, for the reason that there are inadequate factual pleadings to state a gross
negligence claim against these Defendants. Specifically, there are not adequate factual pleadings
of any act or omission to indicate that the Defendants had any actual, subjective awareness of any
risk to Nathaniel Richmond, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to his rights,
safety, or welfare, nor is there any act or omission which, when viewed objectively from the
standpoint of the Defendants at the time of their care and/or treatment of Nathaniel Richmond,
involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential
harm to Nathaniel Richmond. As such, Defendants pray that said allegations be stricken from
Plaintiff’s pleadings and that Plaintiff be limited to proceeding with allegations of general
negligence only, as opposed to gross negligence and general negligence. Furthermore, in the event
that the Court allows Plaintiff to continue with the allegations of gross negligence, Defendants
further object for the reason that the claim of exemplary/punitive damages is not specific in amount
and fails to apprise these Defendants of the matters being asserted against them such that they
DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS,
P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 2
S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx
cannot properly prepare their defenses. Therefore, Defendants pray that Plaintiff be ordered to
replead so as to specify the amount of exemplary and/or punitive damages sought against these
Defendants, both individually and as a whole.
3. Defendants deny that Plaintiff timely provided the required pre-suit Notice and
Medical Authorization under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code sections 74.051 and 74.052.
III.
GENERAL DENIAL
4. Defendants deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained within
Plaintiff s Original Petition and demand strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the credible
evidence before the Court and a jury.
IV.
DOCUMENTS TO BE USED
5. In accordance with Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants
hereby file their notice of intention to use production of documents at trial. Defendants hereby give
Plaintiff notice of their intent to use at trial, deposition, or any pretrial hearing or proceeding, any
and all documents produced by Plaintiff in response to discovery in this case.
V.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
6. Pursuant to Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, including,
but not limited to §74.301(b), Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, Defendants affirmatively
assert that the limit of civil liability for non-economic damages as to these Defendants shall be
limited to an amount not to exceed $250,000 for each claimant.
DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS,
P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 3
S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx
7. Additionally, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, §74.303,
Defendants affirmatively assert the limit of civil liability for all damages, including exemplary
damages, shall be limited to an amount not to exceed $500,000 for each claimant, regardless of
the number of Defendant physicians or health care providers against Whom the claim is asserted
or the number of separate causes of action on which the claim is based. Defendants plead that in
the unlikely event that damages are awarded to the Plaintiff, that they be subject to the limitations
set forth in both Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, §74.301 and §74.303.
8. Pursuant to Chapter 304 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Defendants
affirmatively assert that the post-judgment interest rate is the prime rate as published by the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York on the date of computation; or five percent a year if the prime rate as
published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is less than five percent; or fifteen percent a
year if the prime rate as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is more than fifteen
percent. Furthermore, post-judgment interest is compounded annually. Defendants further assert
that the pre-judgment interest rate is equal to the post-judgment interest rate applicable at the time
ofjudgment, and that pre-judgment interest accrues on the amount of a judgment during the period
beginning on the earlier of the 180th day after the date Defendants receive written notice of a claim
or the date the suit is filed and ending on the date preceding the date judgment is rendered. Pre-
judgment interest is computed as simple interest and does not compound. Furthermore, Defendants
affirmatively assert that pre-judgment interest may not be assessed or recovered on an award of
future damages. Lastly, if judgment for Plaintiff is equal to or less than the amount of a settlement
offer of these Defendants, pre-judgment interest does not accrue on the amount of the judgment
during the period that the offer may be accepted. Defendants incorporate herein by reference as if
DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS,
P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 4
S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx
fully set forth herein §304.003(a) and (c), §§304.005, 304.006, 304.103, 304.104, 304.1045, and
304.105.
9. Defendants affirmatively assert §74.303(e)(2) of the Texas Civil Practice &
Remedies Code and request that when the jury is charged after hearing the evidence in this case,
the jury shall be instructed as follows:
A finding of negligence may not be based solely on evidence of a bad result to the
claimant in question, but a bad result may be considered by you, along With other
evidence, in determining the issue of negligence. You are the sole judges of the
weight, ifany, to be given to this kind of evidence.
10. Pleading further, should same be necessary, Defendants affirmatively assert any
and all procedural substantive rights and provisions afforded in Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice &
Remedies Code.
11. Defendants affirmatively assert the protections and requirements of Chapter 41 of
the Civil Practice & Remedies Code as a defense to Plaintiff s allegations of entitlement to
exemplary damages. Defendant requests that the limitation of damages provision, the bifurcated
trial provisions, the definitions and applicability provisions, the burden of proof, and all other
provisions of Chapter 41 be invoked in this matter so as to govern the prosecution of a case for
gross negligence and for the alleged recovery of exemplary damages.
12. Additionally, Defendants specifically deny that any act or omission on their part
would justify any claim for exemplary damages against Defendants. Any such claims against the
Defendants would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article l, §3, §l3, and §l9 of the Texas Constitution. Such claims
are arbitrary, unreasonable, and violate Defendants’ right to due process and right to equal
protection under the law, as guaranteed by the United States and Texas Constitutions.
DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS,
P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 5
S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx
13. Additionally, Defendants state that the imposition of punitive damages against
them would be fundamentally unfair and would Violate the United States Constitution and the
Texas Constitution in the following respects:
a. Due process requires proof of gross negligence, malice, and punitive
damages by a standard greater than a preponderance of the evidence. Due
process requires proof of such claims by at least clear and convincing
evidence, if not by proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
b. Assessment of punitive damages is a remedy that is essentially criminal in
nature, without safeguards greater than those afforded by the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure, and constitutes the infliction of a criminal penalty
without the safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments.
c. Punitive damages assessed in a civil matter constitute an excessive fine
and, therefore, violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
14. Answering further, should same be necessary, in the unlikely event that the Court
or jury should find that the alleged negligence of the Defendants proximately caused injury as
alleged by Plaintiff, which is herein expressly denied, Defendants hereby give notice that it may
request that the Court order payment of future damages, if any, to be paid in periodic payments
rather than a lump sum payment as provided for by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code
§§74.051 — 74.507.
15. Pursuant to Civil Practice & Remedies Code §74.303(e)(l), and (2), Defendants
affirmatively assert that when a jury is charged after hearing the evidence in this cause, the jury
shall be instructed as follows:
Do not consider, discuss, nor speculate whether or not liability, if any, on the part
of any party is or is not subject to any limit under applicable law.
DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS,
P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 6
S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants Vairavan Subramanian, M.D.,
and Urology Clinics of North Texas, P.L.L.C., pray that Plaintiff receive nothing by reason of this
lawsuit and that Vairavan Subramanian, M.D., and Urology Clinics of North Texas, P.L.L.C., be
dismissed from this case and receive any and other relief, both at law and in equity, to which they
may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
STEED DUNNILL REYNOLDS
BAILEY STEPHENSON LLP
By: /s/ Jon W. Stephenson
JON W. STEPHENSON
State Bar No. 24041973
jonstephenson@steedlawfirm.com
CATHRYN R. PATON
State Bar No. 00797216
cathrynpaton@steedlawf1rm.com
1717 Main Street, Suite 2950
Dallas, Texas 75201
469-698-4200
Fax: 469-698-4201
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDAN TS
VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND
UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS,
P.L.L.C.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded to all
counsel of record on July 30, 2021, Via the electronic service manager, as follows:
Steven R. Davis steve@davislawyers.com
DAVIS & DAVIS
440 Louisiana, Suite 1850
Houston, TX 77002
Attorney for Plaintifl
/s/ Cathrm R. Paton
Cathryn R. Paton
DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS,
P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 7
S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Kathy Dorsey on behalf of Jon Stephenson
Bar No. 24041973
kathydorsey@steedlawfirm.com
Envelope ID: 55862876
Status as of 8/2/2021 10:57 AM CST
Associated Case Party: SHIRLEY RICHMOND
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Steven Davis 789947 Steve@DavisLawyers.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT
Jon Wayne Stephenson 24041973 jonstephenson@steedlawfirm.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT
Lori Slywka lorislywka@steedlawfirm.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT
Cathryn Ruth Paton 797216 cathrynpaton@steedlawfirm.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT
Kathy Dorsey kathydorsey@steedlawfirm.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 7/30/2021 11:28 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Darling Tellez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-08056 SHIRLEY RICHMOND, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE § ESTATE OF NATHANIEL RICHMOND, § DECEASED § § v. § 0F DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND § UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, § PLLC § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Come now Vairavan Subramanian, M.D., and Urology Clinics of North Texas, P.L.L.C., two of the Defendants in the above entitled and numbered cause, and make and file this, their Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and would respectfully show unto this honorable Court as follows: I. MOTION FOR LEVEL 3 DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN Plaintiff states that she intends discovery be conducted under Level 3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants agrees with the Plaintiffs designation and request the Court enter a Level 3 Scheduling Order accordingly. To that end, Defendants’ counsel will draft a proposed Scheduling Order and will circulate among all counsel and will then submit same to the Court as an Agreed Scheduling Order or will request Court intervention on matters that cannot be agreed upon. DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 1 S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx II. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Defendants specially except to Plaintiffs Original Petition, in its entirety, for the reason that said Petition fails to set forth the maximum amount in controversy sought herein informally in writing. Pursuant to section 74.053 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Defendants request the Court enter an order requiring Plaintiff to notify Defendants, by correspondence not to be filed with the Court, of the maximum amount in controversy herein. 2. Defendants object and specially except to Plaintiff s Original Petition, and specifically the reference to “Medical Negligence and Gross Negligence” for each Defendant and any other reference in Plaintiff‘s Petition regarding gross negligence, exemplary damages, and/or punitive damages, for the reason that there are inadequate factual pleadings to state a gross negligence claim against these Defendants. Specifically, there are not adequate factual pleadings of any act or omission to indicate that the Defendants had any actual, subjective awareness of any risk to Nathaniel Richmond, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to his rights, safety, or welfare, nor is there any act or omission which, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the Defendants at the time of their care and/or treatment of Nathaniel Richmond, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Nathaniel Richmond. As such, Defendants pray that said allegations be stricken from Plaintiff’s pleadings and that Plaintiff be limited to proceeding with allegations of general negligence only, as opposed to gross negligence and general negligence. Furthermore, in the event that the Court allows Plaintiff to continue with the allegations of gross negligence, Defendants further object for the reason that the claim of exemplary/punitive damages is not specific in amount and fails to apprise these Defendants of the matters being asserted against them such that they DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 2 S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx cannot properly prepare their defenses. Therefore, Defendants pray that Plaintiff be ordered to replead so as to specify the amount of exemplary and/or punitive damages sought against these Defendants, both individually and as a whole. 3. Defendants deny that Plaintiff timely provided the required pre-suit Notice and Medical Authorization under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code sections 74.051 and 74.052. III. GENERAL DENIAL 4. Defendants deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained within Plaintiff s Original Petition and demand strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the credible evidence before the Court and a jury. IV. DOCUMENTS TO BE USED 5. In accordance with Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants hereby file their notice of intention to use production of documents at trial. Defendants hereby give Plaintiff notice of their intent to use at trial, deposition, or any pretrial hearing or proceeding, any and all documents produced by Plaintiff in response to discovery in this case. V. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 6. Pursuant to Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, including, but not limited to §74.301(b), Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, Defendants affirmatively assert that the limit of civil liability for non-economic damages as to these Defendants shall be limited to an amount not to exceed $250,000 for each claimant. DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 3 S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx 7. Additionally, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, §74.303, Defendants affirmatively assert the limit of civil liability for all damages, including exemplary damages, shall be limited to an amount not to exceed $500,000 for each claimant, regardless of the number of Defendant physicians or health care providers against Whom the claim is asserted or the number of separate causes of action on which the claim is based. Defendants plead that in the unlikely event that damages are awarded to the Plaintiff, that they be subject to the limitations set forth in both Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, §74.301 and §74.303. 8. Pursuant to Chapter 304 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Defendants affirmatively assert that the post-judgment interest rate is the prime rate as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the date of computation; or five percent a year if the prime rate as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is less than five percent; or fifteen percent a year if the prime rate as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is more than fifteen percent. Furthermore, post-judgment interest is compounded annually. Defendants further assert that the pre-judgment interest rate is equal to the post-judgment interest rate applicable at the time ofjudgment, and that pre-judgment interest accrues on the amount of a judgment during the period beginning on the earlier of the 180th day after the date Defendants receive written notice of a claim or the date the suit is filed and ending on the date preceding the date judgment is rendered. Pre- judgment interest is computed as simple interest and does not compound. Furthermore, Defendants affirmatively assert that pre-judgment interest may not be assessed or recovered on an award of future damages. Lastly, if judgment for Plaintiff is equal to or less than the amount of a settlement offer of these Defendants, pre-judgment interest does not accrue on the amount of the judgment during the period that the offer may be accepted. Defendants incorporate herein by reference as if DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 4 S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx fully set forth herein §304.003(a) and (c), §§304.005, 304.006, 304.103, 304.104, 304.1045, and 304.105. 9. Defendants affirmatively assert §74.303(e)(2) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code and request that when the jury is charged after hearing the evidence in this case, the jury shall be instructed as follows: A finding of negligence may not be based solely on evidence of a bad result to the claimant in question, but a bad result may be considered by you, along With other evidence, in determining the issue of negligence. You are the sole judges of the weight, ifany, to be given to this kind of evidence. 10. Pleading further, should same be necessary, Defendants affirmatively assert any and all procedural substantive rights and provisions afforded in Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. 11. Defendants affirmatively assert the protections and requirements of Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code as a defense to Plaintiff s allegations of entitlement to exemplary damages. Defendant requests that the limitation of damages provision, the bifurcated trial provisions, the definitions and applicability provisions, the burden of proof, and all other provisions of Chapter 41 be invoked in this matter so as to govern the prosecution of a case for gross negligence and for the alleged recovery of exemplary damages. 12. Additionally, Defendants specifically deny that any act or omission on their part would justify any claim for exemplary damages against Defendants. Any such claims against the Defendants would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article l, §3, §l3, and §l9 of the Texas Constitution. Such claims are arbitrary, unreasonable, and violate Defendants’ right to due process and right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the United States and Texas Constitutions. DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 5 S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx 13. Additionally, Defendants state that the imposition of punitive damages against them would be fundamentally unfair and would Violate the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution in the following respects: a. Due process requires proof of gross negligence, malice, and punitive damages by a standard greater than a preponderance of the evidence. Due process requires proof of such claims by at least clear and convincing evidence, if not by proof beyond a reasonable doubt; b. Assessment of punitive damages is a remedy that is essentially criminal in nature, without safeguards greater than those afforded by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and constitutes the infliction of a criminal penalty without the safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. c. Punitive damages assessed in a civil matter constitute an excessive fine and, therefore, violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 14. Answering further, should same be necessary, in the unlikely event that the Court or jury should find that the alleged negligence of the Defendants proximately caused injury as alleged by Plaintiff, which is herein expressly denied, Defendants hereby give notice that it may request that the Court order payment of future damages, if any, to be paid in periodic payments rather than a lump sum payment as provided for by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §§74.051 — 74.507. 15. Pursuant to Civil Practice & Remedies Code §74.303(e)(l), and (2), Defendants affirmatively assert that when a jury is charged after hearing the evidence in this cause, the jury shall be instructed as follows: Do not consider, discuss, nor speculate whether or not liability, if any, on the part of any party is or is not subject to any limit under applicable law. DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 6 S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants Vairavan Subramanian, M.D., and Urology Clinics of North Texas, P.L.L.C., pray that Plaintiff receive nothing by reason of this lawsuit and that Vairavan Subramanian, M.D., and Urology Clinics of North Texas, P.L.L.C., be dismissed from this case and receive any and other relief, both at law and in equity, to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, STEED DUNNILL REYNOLDS BAILEY STEPHENSON LLP By: /s/ Jon W. Stephenson JON W. STEPHENSON State Bar No. 24041973 jonstephenson@steedlawfirm.com CATHRYN R. PATON State Bar No. 00797216 cathrynpaton@steedlawf1rm.com 1717 Main Street, Suite 2950 Dallas, Texas 75201 469-698-4200 Fax: 469-698-4201 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDAN TS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded to all counsel of record on July 30, 2021, Via the electronic service manager, as follows: Steven R. Davis steve@davislawyers.com DAVIS & DAVIS 440 Louisiana, Suite 1850 Houston, TX 77002 Attorney for Plaintifl /s/ Cathrm R. Paton Cathryn R. Paton DEFENDANTS VAIRAVAN SUBRAMANIAN, M.D., AND UROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH TEXAS, P.L.L.C.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — Page 7 S:\DOCS\001\20848 Richmond\Pleadings\Defendant\Answer.docx Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Kathy Dorsey on behalf of Jon Stephenson Bar No. 24041973 kathydorsey@steedlawfirm.com Envelope ID: 55862876 Status as of 8/2/2021 10:57 AM CST Associated Case Party: SHIRLEY RICHMOND Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Steven Davis 789947 Steve@DavisLawyers.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT Jon Wayne Stephenson 24041973 jonstephenson@steedlawfirm.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT Lori Slywka lorislywka@steedlawfirm.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT Cathryn Ruth Paton 797216 cathrynpaton@steedlawfirm.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT Kathy Dorsey kathydorsey@steedlawfirm.com 7/30/2021 11:28:02 AM SENT