In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00009-CV __________________
IN RE GANESH VIDYALA, LLC D/B/A KIDDIE ACADEMY OF HARMONY
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-09-13629-CV __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, Relator, Ganesh Vidyala, LLC d/b/a Kiddie
Academy of Harmony (“Harmony”), seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s
order denying Harmony’s motion for an independent medical examination in a suit
that includes claims for personal injury. We stayed further trial court proceedings
and obtained a response from the Real Parties in Interest, Mark Francis and Vivian
Francis. We conditionally grant mandamus relief.
1 Background
In the trial court, the Francises seek monetary relief over $1,000,000,
including past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses, pain and
suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and mental anguish damages for
themselves and their child. They allege that in August 2023, employees working in
Harmony’s childcare facility left their toddler, E.F., alone in a dark bathroom for up
to four hours. They allege E.F. is experiencing significant separation anxiety,
developmental regression, significant distress, and anxiety.
The Francises’ designation of experts identified Dr. George S. Glass, a
licensed psychiatrist, as a retained expert to provide medical and psychological
testimony about E.F.’s and her parents’ medical and psychological conditions,
treatment and medications, medical causation and injuries, including their medical
and psychological injuries, past and future necessary and reasonable medical and
psychological treatment and medications, past and future impairment, and past and
future mental anguish and emotional distress. The Francises disclosed that at trial
Dr. Glass may offer his opinion that E.F. has suffered some of the symptoms of Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, including being upset when exposed to reminders of the
trauma, irritable outbursts, avoidance of external reminders, and hypervigilance.
Harmony filed a motion for the trial court to order that E.F. undergo an
independent medical examination in psychiatry by Dr. Mitchell Alan Young, a
2 licensed psychiatrist who is board certified in Child, Adult, and Forensic Psychiatry
and specializes in clinical, administrative, and forensic neuropsychiatry. Harmony
argued E.F.’s mental condition is in controversy because the Francises are using
E.F.’s mental condition in support of their claims and have designated a testifying
expert to opine on the diagnosis and prognosis of E.F.
Harmony supplied a supporting declaration by Dr. Young. His examination
would include a clinical interview, a mental status examination, and the
administration of psychological instruments in common use under similar
circumstances. The examination would include: a developmental, psychosocial, and
sociocultural history; family history, neurodevelopmental history, including pre-
existing, predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and protective factors; review of
symptoms; and mental status examination employing play therapy techniques,
including sensorium, communication and relatedness, behavioral disturbance, mood
and affect, cognitive function, abnormalities of thought and perceptual disturbances.
The initial evaluation to obtain background information would be with the parents
only, which he estimated would be no longer than two hours. The entire examination
of E.F., including a standardized developmental screening, would not take more than
four hours. Dr. Young recommended that the first visit occur for half an hour or less
so the child is familiar with the environment, and subsequent evaluations be held on
two separate occasions to increase reliability of the evaluation.
3 The Francises responded that Harmony failed to demonstrate good cause for
the examination in that Harmony failed to establish a nexus between the condition
in controversy (emotional distress and mental anguish as opposed to a traumatic
brain injury) and the examination sought. They objected that Dr. Young mentioned
the types of examinations he intended to perform without identifying the specific
tests he intended to administer. They objected that the location of the examination
would be in neighboring Harris County, 32 miles from their home. They argued that
Harmony had deposed Mark Francis and had the opportunity to question him
regarding the child’s injuries and his observations of their effect on his child.
In its reply to the Francises’ response to Harmony’s motion to compel an
independent medical examination, Harmony argued Dr. Young’s examination of
E.F. was essential to evaluating the alleged damages and causation issues and,
through the examination, Dr. Young would likely obtain information regarding
E.F.’s understanding of the alleged events, as well as her cognitive and emotional
development, which are relevant to the claim of mental anguish. They argued Dr.
Young had provided specificity regarding his proposed clinical interview and mental
status examination of E.F. They argued since the Francises’ retained expert would
testify that E.F. suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident, and
that she may be more vulnerable to psychiatric problems and substance abuse, the
proposed examination directly relates to the condition in controversy. Harmony
4 argued Dr. Young explained in his affidavit how restricting his analysis to a review
of treatment records would be inadequate to properly address E.F.’s current level of
behavioral or psychosocial functioning, that Dr. Young should not be required to
rely solely upon Mark Francis’s observations, and that denying an in-person
evaluation would severely limit Dr. Young’s ability to contradict the plaintiffs’
expert.
On September 20, 2024, the trial court denied Harmony’s motion to compel
an independent medical examination of E.F.
In a motion for reconsideration, Harmony supplied a declaration from Dr.
Young. In this declaration, Dr. Young identified specific tests that he intended to
conduct, including: (1) Baley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Fourth
Edition; (2) Behavioral Assessment for Children, Third Edition-BASC-3; (3) Social
Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition - SRS-2; (4) Multidimensional Anxiety Scale
for Children, Second Edition - MASC-2; (5) Pediatric ACEs and Related Life-events
Screener (PEARLS); (6) Child Behavior Checklist; (7) PTSD Semi-Structured
Interview and Observation Record; (7) Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment; (8)
PTSD Symptoms in Preschool Aged Children; (9) Traumatic Events Screening
Inventory-Parents; and (10) Trauma Symptom Checklist for Young Children.
Additionally, Harmony supplied an excerpt from Vivian Francis’s deposition in
5 which she revealed that, in addition to their prior Zoom sessions, in October 2024
Dr. Glass performed an in-person examination of E.F. at his Houston office.
Mandamus Standard
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when the relator shows
that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00009-CV __________________
IN RE GANESH VIDYALA, LLC D/B/A KIDDIE ACADEMY OF HARMONY
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-09-13629-CV __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, Relator, Ganesh Vidyala, LLC d/b/a Kiddie
Academy of Harmony (“Harmony”), seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s
order denying Harmony’s motion for an independent medical examination in a suit
that includes claims for personal injury. We stayed further trial court proceedings
and obtained a response from the Real Parties in Interest, Mark Francis and Vivian
Francis. We conditionally grant mandamus relief.
1 Background
In the trial court, the Francises seek monetary relief over $1,000,000,
including past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses, pain and
suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and mental anguish damages for
themselves and their child. They allege that in August 2023, employees working in
Harmony’s childcare facility left their toddler, E.F., alone in a dark bathroom for up
to four hours. They allege E.F. is experiencing significant separation anxiety,
developmental regression, significant distress, and anxiety.
The Francises’ designation of experts identified Dr. George S. Glass, a
licensed psychiatrist, as a retained expert to provide medical and psychological
testimony about E.F.’s and her parents’ medical and psychological conditions,
treatment and medications, medical causation and injuries, including their medical
and psychological injuries, past and future necessary and reasonable medical and
psychological treatment and medications, past and future impairment, and past and
future mental anguish and emotional distress. The Francises disclosed that at trial
Dr. Glass may offer his opinion that E.F. has suffered some of the symptoms of Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, including being upset when exposed to reminders of the
trauma, irritable outbursts, avoidance of external reminders, and hypervigilance.
Harmony filed a motion for the trial court to order that E.F. undergo an
independent medical examination in psychiatry by Dr. Mitchell Alan Young, a
2 licensed psychiatrist who is board certified in Child, Adult, and Forensic Psychiatry
and specializes in clinical, administrative, and forensic neuropsychiatry. Harmony
argued E.F.’s mental condition is in controversy because the Francises are using
E.F.’s mental condition in support of their claims and have designated a testifying
expert to opine on the diagnosis and prognosis of E.F.
Harmony supplied a supporting declaration by Dr. Young. His examination
would include a clinical interview, a mental status examination, and the
administration of psychological instruments in common use under similar
circumstances. The examination would include: a developmental, psychosocial, and
sociocultural history; family history, neurodevelopmental history, including pre-
existing, predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and protective factors; review of
symptoms; and mental status examination employing play therapy techniques,
including sensorium, communication and relatedness, behavioral disturbance, mood
and affect, cognitive function, abnormalities of thought and perceptual disturbances.
The initial evaluation to obtain background information would be with the parents
only, which he estimated would be no longer than two hours. The entire examination
of E.F., including a standardized developmental screening, would not take more than
four hours. Dr. Young recommended that the first visit occur for half an hour or less
so the child is familiar with the environment, and subsequent evaluations be held on
two separate occasions to increase reliability of the evaluation.
3 The Francises responded that Harmony failed to demonstrate good cause for
the examination in that Harmony failed to establish a nexus between the condition
in controversy (emotional distress and mental anguish as opposed to a traumatic
brain injury) and the examination sought. They objected that Dr. Young mentioned
the types of examinations he intended to perform without identifying the specific
tests he intended to administer. They objected that the location of the examination
would be in neighboring Harris County, 32 miles from their home. They argued that
Harmony had deposed Mark Francis and had the opportunity to question him
regarding the child’s injuries and his observations of their effect on his child.
In its reply to the Francises’ response to Harmony’s motion to compel an
independent medical examination, Harmony argued Dr. Young’s examination of
E.F. was essential to evaluating the alleged damages and causation issues and,
through the examination, Dr. Young would likely obtain information regarding
E.F.’s understanding of the alleged events, as well as her cognitive and emotional
development, which are relevant to the claim of mental anguish. They argued Dr.
Young had provided specificity regarding his proposed clinical interview and mental
status examination of E.F. They argued since the Francises’ retained expert would
testify that E.F. suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident, and
that she may be more vulnerable to psychiatric problems and substance abuse, the
proposed examination directly relates to the condition in controversy. Harmony
4 argued Dr. Young explained in his affidavit how restricting his analysis to a review
of treatment records would be inadequate to properly address E.F.’s current level of
behavioral or psychosocial functioning, that Dr. Young should not be required to
rely solely upon Mark Francis’s observations, and that denying an in-person
evaluation would severely limit Dr. Young’s ability to contradict the plaintiffs’
expert.
On September 20, 2024, the trial court denied Harmony’s motion to compel
an independent medical examination of E.F.
In a motion for reconsideration, Harmony supplied a declaration from Dr.
Young. In this declaration, Dr. Young identified specific tests that he intended to
conduct, including: (1) Baley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Fourth
Edition; (2) Behavioral Assessment for Children, Third Edition-BASC-3; (3) Social
Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition - SRS-2; (4) Multidimensional Anxiety Scale
for Children, Second Edition - MASC-2; (5) Pediatric ACEs and Related Life-events
Screener (PEARLS); (6) Child Behavior Checklist; (7) PTSD Semi-Structured
Interview and Observation Record; (7) Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment; (8)
PTSD Symptoms in Preschool Aged Children; (9) Traumatic Events Screening
Inventory-Parents; and (10) Trauma Symptom Checklist for Young Children.
Additionally, Harmony supplied an excerpt from Vivian Francis’s deposition in
5 which she revealed that, in addition to their prior Zoom sessions, in October 2024
Dr. Glass performed an in-person examination of E.F. at his Houston office.
Mandamus Standard
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when the relator shows
that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy
exists.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling amounts to a clear and
prejudicial error of law, or if the trial court fails to correctly analyze or apply the law
to the facts. Id. at 302–03. “The relator must establish that the trial court could have
reasonably reached only one conclusion.” Id. at 303. “The adequacy of an appellate
remedy is determined by balancing the benefits and detriments of mandamus.” Id. at
304. “This balance is heavily circumstantial.” Id.
Rule 204 Examination
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204.1 governs requests for the physical or
mental examination of another party. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1. The trial court may
order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified physician
or to a mental examination by a qualified psychologist “only for good cause” when
the physical or mental condition of a party is in controversy or the party responding
to the motion has designated a psychologist as a testifying expert. See id. 204.1(c).
The good-cause requirement of Rule 204.1 balances the movant’s right to a fair trial
6 and the opposing party’s right to privacy. H.E.B. Grocery, 492 S.W.3d at 303. To
satisfy the good cause requirement, “the movant must (1) show that the requested
examination is relevant to issues in controversy and will produce or likely lead to
relevant evidence, (2) establish a reasonable nexus between the requested
examination and the condition in controversy, and (3) demonstrate that the desired
information cannot be obtained by less intrusive means.” Id.
“When the existence, extent, and cause of an injury are in controversy, an
exam intended to glean information regarding those issues will satisfy the relevance
requirement.” In re Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d 837, 841–42 (Tex. 2022)
(orig. proceeding) (citation omitted). There must be evidence that the requested
examination is directly related to the condition in controversy. Id. at 842.
The Francises allege that because of being left alone in the bathroom for hours,
E.F. is experiencing significant separation anxiety, developmental regression,
significant distress, and anxiety, for which they have sued to recover damages for
past and future necessary and reasonable medical and psychological treatment and
medications, past and future impairment, and past and future mental anguish and
emotional distress. The Francises disclosed in discovery that their retained expert, a
licensed psychiatrist, would provide medical psychological testimony about E.F.’s
medical and psychological conditions, treatment, and medications, medical
causation, and injuries caused by Harmony. Their testifying expert has personally
7 examined E.F. He would testify that E.F. suffers from symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder as a result of the incident, including being upset when exposed to
reminders of the trauma, irritable outbursts, avoidance of external reminders, and
hypervigilance. E.F.’s mental condition is in controversy, and she has retained a
testifying expert. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1(c).
The requested examination by Dr. Young will gather the information from
E.F. and her parents to effectively opine on Dr. Glass’s diagnosis of post-traumatic
stress symptoms and E.F.’s alleged separation anxiety, developmental regression,
significant distress, and anxiety. We conclude the requested examination is relevant.
See Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 841–42.
The requested examination would assess E.F.’s understanding of the alleged
events as well as her cognitive and emotional development, which are relevant to the
claim of mental anguish and alleged impairment of her psychological development.
We conclude Harmony established a reasonable nexus between the requested
examination and E.F.’s mental conditions. See H.E.B. Grocery, 492 S.W.3d at 303.
Dr. Young explained that without meeting and assessing E.F. in the same
manner afforded E.F.’s treating clinicians and experts, he will be at a distinct
disadvantage in his evaluation of E.F. Dr. Glass has personally interviewed Mark
and Vivian Francis, performed telemedicine and in-person examinations of E.F., and
has performed a mental status examination on all three. To effectively test Dr.
8 Glass’s opinions and diagnoses, Dr. Young requires an examination that includes
clinical interviews, a mental status evaluation, and the administration of
psychological test instruments in wide and common use. We conclude Harmony
demonstrated that the necessary information cannot be obtained through less
obtrusive means. See Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 842–43.
In balancing the benefits and detriments to determine whether mandamus
relief is appropriate, we consider that Harmony’s defense largely turns on
challenging the cause, nature, and extent of the alleged mental anguish and
psychological and developmental impairment, and that those issues will depend
significantly on competing expert testimony. Allowing Harmony the same
opportunity as the Francises’ expert to fully develop and present his opinion is
necessary to ensure a fair trial. We conclude Harmony has shown that it lacks an
adequate remedy by appeal. See Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 843.
Conclusion
We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by denying Harmony’s
motion for an independent medical examination by Harmony’s retained expert
psychiatrist and Harmony lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we lift
our temporary order of March 25, 2025, and we conditionally grant mandamus relief.
We are confident that the trial court will vacate its order of September 20, 2024, and
order that E.F. submit to an independent medical examination to be conducted by
9 Dr. Young at his Houston office, including pre-examination clinical interviews of
Mark and Vivian Francis and an in-person examination of E.F. The writ shall issue
only if the trial court does not comply.
PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 21, 2025 Opinion Delivered May 22, 2025
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.