In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00073-CV __________________
IN RE WEST GULF MARITIME ASSOCIATION
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. E-204177 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a mandamus petition, Relator West Gulf Maritime Association contends
the trial court clearly abused its discretion “by excluding critical evidence of illegal
drug use and intoxication resulting in death” in a suit brought by Real Party in
Interest Gloria Broussard, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Pamela
D. Thomas. We conditionally grant mandamus relief.
Thomas, a longshoreman working in a warehouse for P.C. Pfeiffer, was
crushed to death between 500-pound bales of paper fiber that were being positioned
for loading onto railcars using a large forklift operated by Thomas’s foreman, Joseph 1 Zeno. Her task was to cut wires on the bales and flag the forklift operator forward as
he loaded the bales onto a railcar. Before the accident occurred, Thomas left her post
without telling her supervisor. Her crew members looked for her without success,
then resumed operations, unaware that Thomas had returned without alerting her co-
workers and was among the 500-pound bales on the warehouse floor. According to
Broussard, West Gulf “was supposed to properly train Defendant Joseph Zeno, or
see to it he was properly trained.”
Before trial began on May 6, 2023, the trial court ruled that evidence of
Thomas’s synthetic cannabinoid use would be admitted at trial. The trial court
declared a mistrial because an insufficient number of jurors remained after the trial
court granted challenges for cause. Before re-trial, Broussard moved to exclude “any
and all references to synthetic cannabinoid, alleged drug use by Pamela D. Thomas,
or any testing done by NMS labs.” Broussard’s experts rendered their opinions that
the NMS Labs test taken during her autopsy showed a detectable level of synthetic
cannabinoid in Thomas’s system, but Broussard argued the lab test result is not
evidence of impairment because one of her experts, toxicologist Brittany Casey,
testified in deposition that the qualitative analysis performed by NMS Labs showed
that Thomas ingested synthetic cannabinoid before she died. Even so, Casey also
testified the laboratory did not perform a quantitative analysis and she could not say,
2 based in reasonable scientific probability, that Thomas was impaired from synthetic
cannabinoid use the morning she died. Casey also testified that adverse effects of
synthetic cannabinoid ingestion include confusion, erratic behavior, mental lapses,
disorientation, slowed reactions, and balance deficiencies. She also agreed that a low
dose could be highly intoxicating and a minute amount could impair a person.
West Gulf responded that the motion was premature, and complained
Broussard had withdrawn her previous agreement to offer another of her designated
expert pathologists, Jonathan Eisenstat, for deposition. West Gulf argued Thomas’s
actions, including her disappearance, re-appearance, and ingestion of synthetic
cannabinoids go directly to West Gulf’s affirmative defenses of contributory
negligence, comparative fault, failure to exercise ordinary prudence and reasonable
care, and pre-existing bodily conditions. West Gulf argued evidence that Thomas
ingested illegal synthetic cannabinoids provided some explanation for why Thomas
acted as she did in connection with the occurrence.
The trial court’s order states:
The Court came on to consider Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude any Reference to Synthetic Cannabinoid or Reference to NMS Lab Testing and[,] after same, is of the opinion that said motion should be GRANTED. The Court has seen the reaction of a jury panel to this offered evidence. Considering the qualitative vs. quantitative nature of the evidence and the unfair prejudice it creates:
3 It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECRE[E]D that Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude any Reference to Synthetic Cannabinoid or Reference to NMS Lab Testing is GRANTED.
Mandamus Standard
We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by
the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “A trial
court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827
S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion
if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion
in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Prudential,
148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
Mandamus review of incidental, interlocutory rulings by the trial courts unduly interferes with trial court proceedings, distracts appellate court attention to issues that are unimportant both to the ultimate disposition of the case at hand and to the uniform development of the law, and adds unproductively to the expense and delay of civil litigation. Mandamus review of significant rulings in exceptional cases may be essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss, allow the appellate courts to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final judgments, and spare private parties and the public the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted proceedings. An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to
4 mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments. When the benefits outweigh the detriments, appellate courts must consider whether the appellate remedy is adequate.
Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136. This balancing test is necessarily a fact-specific
inquiry that “resists categorization[.]” Id.
The trial court excluded all testimony of Thomas’s ingestion of synthetic
cannabinoid based on deposition testimony from Broussard’s expert, not West
Gulf’s expert. The trial court did not rule that West Gulf’s expert’s testimony was
unreliable; rather, it ruled that the probative value of qualitative evidence of
cannabinoid use, as opposed to quantitative evidence of cannabinoid use, was
outweighed by the prejudicial effect evidence of illegal cannabinoid use by a
longshoreman would have on a jury. See Tex. R. Evid. 403.
Broussard argues there is no connection of the intoxicant to impairment at the
time of the accident because her expert testified in deposition that the positive
finding for synthetic cannabinoid did not prove impairment, and she could not tell
the jury that Thomas was impaired at the time of the accident. We disagree that
Casey’s statement—that she could not say, based in reasonable scientific probability,
that Thomas was impaired from synthetic cannabinoid use the morning she died—
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. 09-25-00073-CV __________________
IN RE WEST GULF MARITIME ASSOCIATION
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. E-204177 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a mandamus petition, Relator West Gulf Maritime Association contends
the trial court clearly abused its discretion “by excluding critical evidence of illegal
drug use and intoxication resulting in death” in a suit brought by Real Party in
Interest Gloria Broussard, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Pamela
D. Thomas. We conditionally grant mandamus relief.
Thomas, a longshoreman working in a warehouse for P.C. Pfeiffer, was
crushed to death between 500-pound bales of paper fiber that were being positioned
for loading onto railcars using a large forklift operated by Thomas’s foreman, Joseph 1 Zeno. Her task was to cut wires on the bales and flag the forklift operator forward as
he loaded the bales onto a railcar. Before the accident occurred, Thomas left her post
without telling her supervisor. Her crew members looked for her without success,
then resumed operations, unaware that Thomas had returned without alerting her co-
workers and was among the 500-pound bales on the warehouse floor. According to
Broussard, West Gulf “was supposed to properly train Defendant Joseph Zeno, or
see to it he was properly trained.”
Before trial began on May 6, 2023, the trial court ruled that evidence of
Thomas’s synthetic cannabinoid use would be admitted at trial. The trial court
declared a mistrial because an insufficient number of jurors remained after the trial
court granted challenges for cause. Before re-trial, Broussard moved to exclude “any
and all references to synthetic cannabinoid, alleged drug use by Pamela D. Thomas,
or any testing done by NMS labs.” Broussard’s experts rendered their opinions that
the NMS Labs test taken during her autopsy showed a detectable level of synthetic
cannabinoid in Thomas’s system, but Broussard argued the lab test result is not
evidence of impairment because one of her experts, toxicologist Brittany Casey,
testified in deposition that the qualitative analysis performed by NMS Labs showed
that Thomas ingested synthetic cannabinoid before she died. Even so, Casey also
testified the laboratory did not perform a quantitative analysis and she could not say,
2 based in reasonable scientific probability, that Thomas was impaired from synthetic
cannabinoid use the morning she died. Casey also testified that adverse effects of
synthetic cannabinoid ingestion include confusion, erratic behavior, mental lapses,
disorientation, slowed reactions, and balance deficiencies. She also agreed that a low
dose could be highly intoxicating and a minute amount could impair a person.
West Gulf responded that the motion was premature, and complained
Broussard had withdrawn her previous agreement to offer another of her designated
expert pathologists, Jonathan Eisenstat, for deposition. West Gulf argued Thomas’s
actions, including her disappearance, re-appearance, and ingestion of synthetic
cannabinoids go directly to West Gulf’s affirmative defenses of contributory
negligence, comparative fault, failure to exercise ordinary prudence and reasonable
care, and pre-existing bodily conditions. West Gulf argued evidence that Thomas
ingested illegal synthetic cannabinoids provided some explanation for why Thomas
acted as she did in connection with the occurrence.
The trial court’s order states:
The Court came on to consider Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude any Reference to Synthetic Cannabinoid or Reference to NMS Lab Testing and[,] after same, is of the opinion that said motion should be GRANTED. The Court has seen the reaction of a jury panel to this offered evidence. Considering the qualitative vs. quantitative nature of the evidence and the unfair prejudice it creates:
3 It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECRE[E]D that Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude any Reference to Synthetic Cannabinoid or Reference to NMS Lab Testing is GRANTED.
Mandamus Standard
We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by
the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “A trial
court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827
S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion
if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion
in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Prudential,
148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
Mandamus review of incidental, interlocutory rulings by the trial courts unduly interferes with trial court proceedings, distracts appellate court attention to issues that are unimportant both to the ultimate disposition of the case at hand and to the uniform development of the law, and adds unproductively to the expense and delay of civil litigation. Mandamus review of significant rulings in exceptional cases may be essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss, allow the appellate courts to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final judgments, and spare private parties and the public the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted proceedings. An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to
4 mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments. When the benefits outweigh the detriments, appellate courts must consider whether the appellate remedy is adequate.
Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136. This balancing test is necessarily a fact-specific
inquiry that “resists categorization[.]” Id.
The trial court excluded all testimony of Thomas’s ingestion of synthetic
cannabinoid based on deposition testimony from Broussard’s expert, not West
Gulf’s expert. The trial court did not rule that West Gulf’s expert’s testimony was
unreliable; rather, it ruled that the probative value of qualitative evidence of
cannabinoid use, as opposed to quantitative evidence of cannabinoid use, was
outweighed by the prejudicial effect evidence of illegal cannabinoid use by a
longshoreman would have on a jury. See Tex. R. Evid. 403.
Broussard argues there is no connection of the intoxicant to impairment at the
time of the accident because her expert testified in deposition that the positive
finding for synthetic cannabinoid did not prove impairment, and she could not tell
the jury that Thomas was impaired at the time of the accident. We disagree that
Casey’s statement—that she could not say, based in reasonable scientific probability,
that Thomas was impaired from synthetic cannabinoid use the morning she died—
necessarily precludes any other expert from drawing different conclusions from the
data in the context of the other available evidence. Furthermore, the fact that
5 Broussard’s expert performed a qualitative analysis as opposed to quantitative
analysis does not deprive the positive result of all probative value, especially
considering that Casey agreed that synthetic cannabinoids can be rapidly
metabolized within the body after ingestion, and that a minute amount could impair
a person.
“When determining admissibility of evidence under Rule 403, trial judges
must balance the probative value of the evidence against relevant countervailing
factors.” JBS Carriers, Inc. v. Washington, 564 S.W.3d 830, 836-37 (Tex. 2018).
“Evidence that a party to an accident was intoxicated or impaired is not, in and of
itself, evidence that the party acted negligently in relation to the accident. However,
such evidence is probative if it is relevant to a party’s actions in conforming or failing
to conform to an appropriate standard of care.” Id. at 836-37 (internal citations and
quotations omitted). Evidence of a party’s use of impairing substances is admissible
if the evidence raises a question about why the party acted as she did in connection
with the occurrence. Id. at 837. Evidence is not inadmissible simply because it is
prejudicial. Id. at 836. A trial court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence only if
its admission will inflict unfair prejudice; that is, “an undue tendency to suggest a
decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional
one.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
6 As was the case in JBS Carriers, an expert—in that case the defendants’ but
in this case the plaintiff’s—stated they had no specific proof that the decedent was
impaired at the time of the accident. Id. at 838. The evidence here, however, is not
simply that Thomas had a detectable level of synthetic cannabinoid in her blood
when she died. Thomas left the warehouse floor without telling Zeno, then returned
without alerting her co-workers to her presence. Evidence that Thomas had ingested
synthetic cannabinoid is prejudicial to Broussard’s case not only because the drug is
illegal, but also because Thomas had a detectable level of the substance in her blood
while she was working in a warehouse where the employees were using heavy
equipment to move large, heavy objects in limited space, and one of her duties was
to assist the equipment operator in moving the cargo safely. That is not an improper
basis on which a jury could consider the evidence and decide issues related to
liability.
The excluded evidence is crucial to a key issue, other evidence supports a
finding that drug usage contributed to Thomas’s allegedly negligent actions, and the
evidence likely would affect the jury’s allocation of responsibility. The trial court’s
order excluding any reference to the NMS Labs test or Thomas’s synthetic
cannabinoid use precludes West Gulf from presenting its defensive theory that
7 Thomas’s death was attributable to her failure to follow her training, not to West
Gulf’s alleged failure to properly train the forklift operator.
We conclude that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by excluding any
reference to the NMS Labs test or Thomas’s synthetic cannabinoid use, and that
West Gulf lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. We are confident that the trial court
will vacate its order of October 9, 2024. The writ shall issue only in the event the
trial court fails to comply.
PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on April 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered July 24, 2025
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.