Gloria Ochoa v. Nail Flower Beauty Salon

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 5, 2015·No. 04-14-00509-CV·Published

Opinion

Page 1 of 22

en 'ij^'1 No.04-14-00509-CV ^-7^ ? J" C.X ~&.

» Sir

CAUSE No 2013-CI-12691 ~ o XT

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER

300 Dolorosa, Suite 300

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037

Original Brief date February 9, 2015

APPELLANTS BRIEF - AMENDED 4-30-15. Page 2 of 22

GLORIA E. OCHOA-APPELLANT, APPELLANT IN PROPIA PERSONA

V.

NAIL FLOWER NAIL/BEAUTY SALON-APPELLEE.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 224TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

IN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No 2013-CI-12691

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding Page 3 of 22

Appellant/Plaintiff: Plaintiff/Appellant's Counsel

Gloria E. Ochoa - Appellant in Propria Persona

542 Williamsburg Place

San Antonio, Texas 78201

Phone: 210-309-0744

Phone: 210-736-1408 Page 4 of 22

Appellee/Defendant: Defendant/Appellee's Counsel:

Campbell, Miller & Associates

Elizabeth W. Lennane

IBN. 24053014

300 Convent, Suite 2350

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Phone: 210-229-9879

Fax 210-229-9878 PAGE 5 OF 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

INDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ..........i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES iv

STATEMENT OF CASE vi

ISSUES PRESENTED vii

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1

STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT 2

ARGUMENT 4

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6

APPENDIX 7 PAGE 6 OF 22

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

NEGLIGENCE. 322.01 (2), 322, 05 (2 CH 290).

CASES

Beauty Shops, Inc, v Foreman, 319 S. W. 2D 737, 738-739 9 Civ, App., - Houston 1958, see 322.01 (6). For additional causes of action, see 322.100 (2). (b)...Elements of Cause of Action for Negligence of Barber or Cosmetologist.

Dickey v Jackson, 193 S. W. 584, 585 (CIV., Galveston 1927), reviewed on other ground. 1 s.w. 2D 577, (Comm, App 1928, judgement adopted and holding approved, see 322.05 (2) (a); See also Chg 20, damages in Tort).

PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE 322.103 (1) (b) (322.76

(b)-ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE OF BARBER OR COSMETOLOGISTS.

This form alleges the five stanrdard elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, proximate causation, injury and damages. See 322.01, (1) 322.05 (2); CH 2980, Negligence). The duty owed to the plaintiff arrises out of the professional relationship between the barber or cosmetologist and the client and the breach of duty is the professionals' failure to perform services for the client with the care and diligence commonly exercised by similar professionals in similar circumstances (see 322.05 (2) (a). The harm generally takes the form of physical personal injuries, although the plaintiff may recover damages for mental iv PAGE 7 of 22

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)

anguish for an embarrassment of humiliation resulting from alterations in his or her appearance caused by the professional's negligence (Dickey v Jackson, 193 S.W. 5854, 585 (Civ. App. - Galveston 1927), reviewed on other ground. 1 s.w. 2D 577, (Comm, App 1928, judgement adopted and holding approved, see 322.05 (2) (a); see also Chg 20, Damages in Tort.

IV. Page 8 of 22

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

STATEMENT OF FACTS - & SEE ATTACHED "RECORD" REFERENCES.

On 8-09-2011, I received severe "staph infection" to my left thumb after a manicure at Nail Flower Beauty Salon.

This resulted in ONGOING, chronic pain, loss of use for thumb, fingers, disfigurement and other related injuries and ongoing medical treatment.

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT WAS RENDERED 6-19-14 FOR NOT PROVIDING LEGAL RESPONSE IN A TIMELY MANNOR.

Citation: This case did not go to trial and thus no court reporter records available.

**ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED**

Page 9 of 22

GOOD CAUSE.

There was "Good Cause" for the failure to timely make, amend or supplement the discovery response.

REFER TO ITEMS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, BELOW.

1. This motion is presented within the time limits prescribed by the Texas rules of Civil procedure for Motion for a new trial.

2. The Judgment of the court is contrary to law. 3. There was insufficient evidence to support the engorgement as delivered, as Plaintiff was NOT ALLOWED to present REASONS for not responding in a timely manner.

**The Court erred in this regard. As the victim of Defendants negligence & suffering from effects of the infection , I was not able to physically, mentally, emotionally, respond in timely mannor. See "Good Cause" above.**

4. Plaintiffs failure to file an answer before judgment was the result of an accident and or mistake, rather than due to an intentional act or the result of conscious indifference.

5. Plaintiff "is" the "Injured Party" and unrepresented by attorney as previous attorney abruptly canceled agreement to represent her.

PAGE 10 OF 22

Good Cause (continued)

Plaintiff has been unable to locate other attorney who would take case due to limited time frame to work on this case.

6. Plaintiff/Gloria E Ochoa has been and is CURRENTLY under PHYSICIANS CARE & ONGOING MEDICAL CARE and on MEDICATIONS.

See INCLUDED/ATTACHED ongoing MEDICAL TREATMENT RECORDS - 2011 year to present year 2015.

7. Above described situation and suffering from severe injuries from staph infection incurred at above named nail salon prevented Plaintiff from responding in a timely manner. 8. Gloria E Ochoa files this Appeal Brief complaining of defendant and how defendant caused great "Personal Injury" to her.

9. Gloria E Ochoa requests opportunity for verbal discussion etc, to answer, in person, any questions from the judges to decide this case. Page 11 of 22

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. This motion is presented within the time limits prescribed by the Texas rules of Civil procedure for Motion for a new trial.

2. The Judgment of the court is contrary to law.

3. There was insufficient evidence to support the engorgement as delivered, as Plaintiff was NOT ALLOWED to present REASONS for not responding in a timely manner.

4. Plaintiffs failure to file an answer before judgment was the result of an accident and or mistake, rather than due to an intentional act or the result of conscious indifference.

5. Plaintiff "is" the "Injured Party" and unrepresented by attorney as previous attorney abruptly canceled agreement to represent her.Plaintiff has been unable to locate other attorney who would take case due to limited time frame to work on this case.

6. Plaintiff/Gloria E Ochoa has been and is CURRENTLY under PHYSICIANS CARE & ONGOING MEDICAL CARE and on MEDICATIONS.

See included/attached Dr's bill showing dates of medical care on June 2014. Same month and year of the Summary Judgement.

Page 12 of 22

ISSUES PRESENTED (CONTINUED).

SEE INCLUDED/ATTACHED ongoing MEDICAL TREATMENT RECORDS - 2011 year to present year 2015. 7. Above described situation and suffering & treatment from severe injuries from staph infection incurred at above named nail salon prevented Plaintiff from responding in a timely manner.

8. Gloria E Ochoa files this Appeal Brief complaining of defendant and how defendant caused great "Personal Injury" to her.

PAGE 13 OF 22

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.

The courts orders granting immunity to Defendants are erroneous because they are contrary to Texas Court decisions,

Appellants submit that oral argument would help the Court craft an opinion that explains simply and clearly why these decisions apply so that future courts will not make the same errors.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gloria Ochoa v. Nail Flower Beauty Salon, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Gloria Ochoa v. Nail Flower Beauty Salon (Gloria Ochoa v. Nail Flower Beauty Salon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Valadez v. Avitia
238 S.W.3d 843 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt
373 S.W.3d 57 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)