in Re: Richard Bridges

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 28, 2005
• Docket: 13-05-00062-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

v03252.ord

NUMBER 13-05-00062-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: RICHARD BRIDGES, ET AL, Relators

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Wittig

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On January 25, 2005, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct the respondent, the Honorable Marisela Saldana, presiding judge of the County Court at Law No. 3, Nueces County, Texas, to vacate her order, dated January 14, 2005, in Cause No. 03-61777-3, denying their motion to compel. After reviewing the petition, this Court requested a response. The real party in interest, Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial, filed a response on February 8, 2005. On February 11, 2005, this Court ordered the trial court to forward any and all sealed documents in this matter to this Court for inspection. The documents were received by this Court on February 16, 2005.

Having reviewed the in camera medical documents, we conclude that Defendant’s Exhibit 3, entitled “Quality Management Referral,” is privileged under both the medical/hospital committee and peer review committee privileges. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 161.031 - 161.032 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see also Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 160.007 (Vernon 2004). However, Defendant’s Exhibit 2, entitled “Risk Management Variance Report August 2002,” appears to be an incident report generated in the regular course of business. According to the testimony of the risk manager, such reports only go to risk management, which is not a hospital committee. Accordingly, we conclude it does not fall within the privilege. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 161.031 - 161.032 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 160.007 (Vernon 2004).

We conditionally grant relator’s petition for writ of mandamus regarding Defendant’s Exhibit 2, and deny the writ of mandamus regarding Defendant’s Exhibit 3. The writ will issue only if respondent fails to reform her order of January 14, 2005, and fails to grant relator’s motion to compel regarding Defendant’s Exhibit 2.

                                                                                                                                                     PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 28th day of February 2005.