In Re Club Car, LLC, Jason Miller, Charles Miller, and Maria Miller v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 02-25-00532-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00532-CV ___________________________

IN RE CLUB CAR, LLC, JASON MILLER, CHARLES MILLER, AND MARIA MILLER, Relators

Original Proceeding 481st District Court of Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-6391-481

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators filed this petition for writ of mandamus to compel the trial court (1) to

vacate both its July 17, 2025 order denying their motion to compel a medical

examination under Rule 204.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and its

September 19, 2025 order denying their motion to reconsider and (2) to direct the trial

court to sign an order requiring real-party-in-interest to submit to medical

examinations. We conditionally grant relief.

I. BACKGROUND

After a golf cart accident, Real Party in Interest Alexa Vincent allegedly

suffered fractures to her legs, burns, neck injuries, and a traumatic brain injury.

Among other defendants, Vincent sued Relators Jason Miller (the driver of the golf

cart), Charles and Maria Miller (the owners of the golf cart), and Club Car, LLC (the

manufacturer of the golf cart) (collectively Club Car).

In February 2025, Vincent served on Club Car her medical expert’s report in

which she sought over $2,000,000 in damages.

Club Car wanted an opportunity to conduct its own independent medical

examination and in June 2025 filed a “Joint Motion to Compel Independent Medical

Examination of Plaintiff Alexa Vincent.” The trial court denied Club Car’s motion

without explanation on July 17, 2025.

2 Club Car then filed a motion to reconsider on August 18, 2025. And on

September 19, 2025, again without explanation, the trial court denied Club Car’s

motion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A party is entitled to mandamus relief if the trial court clearly abused its

discretion and the party lacks an adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal. In re

Sherwin-Williams Co., 668 S.W.3d 368, 370 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding); In re Chefs’

Produce of Houston, Inc., 667 S.W.3d 297, 300 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding). When a

trial court fails to analyze or apply the law correctly, it clearly abuses its discretion.

Sherwin-Williams Co., 668 S.W.3d at 370.

III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A trial court may compel an examination “only for good cause shown” when

the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy. Tex. R. Civ. P.

204.1(c)(1). The rule’s good-cause requirement balances the movant’s right to a fair

trial and the other party’s right to privacy. Sherwin-Williams Co., 668 S.W.3d at 370–71.

The movant establishes good cause by showing that (1) the examination is relevant to

the issue in controversy and is likely to lead to relevant evidence, (2) there is a

reasonable nexus between the examination and the condition in controversy, and

(3) the desired information cannot be obtained by less intrusive means. Id. at 371.

3 IV. DISCUSSION

Club Car maintains that it met all three requirements. Vincent contends the

contrary. We agree with Club Car.

A. THE EXAMINATION IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY AND IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

Vincent sued Club Car and sought compensation for her injuries. Vincent’s

medical expert’s report identified her alleged injuries.

Vincent’s alleged injuries are the crux of the controversy. Having Club Car’s

doctors examine Vincent to determine the existence and extent of her alleged injuries

would likely lead to relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to

make a fact of consequence in determining the action more or less probable. In re

United Healthcare Ins. Co., 652 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022, orig.

proceeding) (relying on Tex. R. Evid. 401). Vincent alleges injuries stemming from

the accident, has presented pertinent medical records as evidence, and intends to use

expert medical testimony to support her allegations; her injuries are unquestionably in

controversy. See In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 304 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding); In re Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 02-25-00527-CV, 2025 WL

32545831, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 21, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem.

op.).

Club Car met the first element.

4 B. THERE IS A REASONABLE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXAMINATION AND THE CONDITION IN CONTROVERSY.

Club Car’s proposed doctors wanted to examine Vincent on the injuries alleged

in her medical expert’s report. Thus, the examinations have a nexus to the alleged

injuries. See Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 WL 32545831, at *3.

Club Car met the second element.

C. THE DESIRED INFORMATION CANNOT BE OBTAINED BY LESS INTRUSIVE MEANS.

Vincent argues that the least intrusive means to obtain the desired information

is for Club Car to rely on the information that her own doctor provided. We disagree.

In every case, the least intrusive means would be to have the defendants’ doctors rely

on the information provided by the plaintiff’s doctor. But the defendants’ doctors

would not necessarily want to rely exclusively on information provided by another

doctor—disinterested or otherwise. See id.

The Texas Supreme Court has rejected this argument because it places

defendants at a severe disadvantage. “[R]equiring the defendant’s expert to testify at

trial without the exam would place him at a distinct disadvantage because it would

allow the plaintiff to call into question his credibility in front of the jury.” Sherwin-

Williams Co., 668 S.W.3d at 371; In re Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d 837, 843

(Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding); H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d at 304. “[A]

treating doctor [is] in a better position than a records-review doctor to examine and

5 opine on the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.” Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 842–

43.

Vincent faults Club Car’s two supporting affidavits as being conclusory. In the

neuropsychologist’s affidavit, the doctor said reviewing Vincent’s medical records was

not sufficient: “The evaluation that I seek to conduct will provide me with

information that is not available solely from a review of Ms. Vincent’s medical

records.” The other doctor, who was retained to evaluate medical causation and

damages issues, including Vincent’s Complex Regional Pain Syndrome diagnosis, pain,

pain management, and recommendations for future treatment, essentially repeated

this assertion in his affidavit: “Without such an examination, my ability to render a

reliable, evidence-based opinion is significantly limited, and the defendants will be

deprived of critical diagnostic information necessary to rebut the plaintiff’s damages-

related claims.” In view of the supreme court authority cited above, these statements

are sufficient. See Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 WL 32545831, at *3.

A great deal of the adversarial process stops being adversarial when only one

party is allowed to present its case. See generally In re Abbott, 628 S.W.3d 288, 298 (Tex.

2021) (orig. proceeding) (“The district court reached this conclusion based on an ex

parte presentation from Plaintiffs, not based on the adversarial process on which our

legal system depends for the resolution of such questions.”). Factfinders should be

able to consider all the competing evidence supported by otherwise admissible expert

testimony. State v. Windham, 837 S.W.2d 73, 78 (Tex. 1992). Here, the trial court’s 6 order handicaps Club Car from determining for itself the nature and extent of

Vincent’s injuries and from providing competing evidence. See Sherwin-Williams Co.,

668 S.W.3d at 371; Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 843; H.E.B. Grocery Co.,

L.P., 492 S.W.3d at 304.

V. CONCLUSION

We hold that the trial court abused its discretion and that Club Car does not

have any other adequate remedy at law. See Sherwin-Williams Co., 668 S.W.3d at 372;

Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 843–44; H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d at

305. We conditionally grant Club Car’s petition for writ of mandamus. We direct the

trial court to vacate its July 17, 2025 order denying Club Car’s motion to compel a

medical examination under Rule 204.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and its

September 19, 2025 order denying Club Car’s motion to reconsider and to issue an

order compelling Vincent to submit to the examinations on reasonable and

appropriate terms and conditions. Our writ will issue only if the trial court does not

comply.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Delivered: November 25, 2025