Castro v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.

673 S.W.3d 294

Juliann CASTRO, Appellant

v.SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and Christopher Jones, Appellees

No. 04-21-00420-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Delivered and Filed: May 31, 2023

APPELLANT ATTORNEY: Samuel V. Houston, III, Houston Dunn, PLLC, 4040 Broadway St., Ste. 515, San Antonio, TX 78209, Dennis Bentley, The Law Offices of Thomas J. Henry, 521 Starr St., Corpus Christi, TX 78401

APPELLEE ATTORNEY: Brandon Duke, Katherine Preston, Miriam Vranderic, Denise Urzendowski Scofield, James Nye, Winston & Strawn LLP, 800 Capitol St., Ste. 2400, Houston, TX 77002-1090, David R. Montpas, Prichard Hawkins Young, 10101 Reunion Pl., Ste. 600, San Antonio, TX 78216.

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice, Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Beth Watkins, Justice

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Appellant Juliann Castro appeals from a take-nothing final judgment, rendered in accordance with a jury verdict, in favor of appellees Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("STC") and Christopher Jones (collectively "Schlumberger"). In six issues, which we reorder and broadly reclassify as three, Castro complains that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in four evidentiary rulings; (2) the evidence is factually insufficient to support the verdict; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in overruling her motion to equalize peremptory challenges. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2017, Jones, an employee of STC, was operating a tractor-trailer on State Highway 173 in Devine, Texas. At the same time, Castro was operating a sedan that was traveling in the same direction as Jones but to his right. After a red traffic light turned green, both drivers began accelerating. Soon thereafter, Jones moved into Castro's lane of travel. Consequently, Jones's vehicle sideswiped the driver's side of Castro's vehicle. Jones testified that he was traveling between twenty and twenty-five miles per hour at the time of the accident.

Devine Police Department Officer Christopher Martinez prepared a crash report, which lists Jones's changing of lanes when it was unsafe to do so as a contributing factor to the accident. An incident investigation report prepared by STC employees lists the "root cause" of the accident as Jones's failure to identify Castro's vehicle "in [the] passenger side blind spot of [the] tractor."

After the accident, Castro was taken by ambulance to the hospital. The emergency care physician prescribed Castro pain medication and advised her to follow up with her primary care physician. On April 24, 2018, Castro was evaluated by Howard Kagan, a physician assistant at Interventional Pain Management, also known as Tricity Pain Associates. Kagan referred Castro for a "stress testMRI" of her cervical spine at Brio San Antonio. Thereafter, Kagan referred Castro to two orthopedic surgeons for evaluation regarding pain in her neck and left shoulder. On September 6, 2018, Saqib Siddiqui, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, examined Castro and reviewed the MRI images of her cervical spine. Dr. Siddiqui appreciated a disc herniation at the C4–C5 level based on his review of the MRI images. At this same appointment, Dr. Siddiqui recommended that Castro undergo a C4–C5 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. On June 12, 2019, Castro underwent a cervical MRI at Touchstone Medical Imaging at Dr. Siddiqui's request. Harold Sonnier, M.D., a radiologist board certified in both diagnostic radiology and neuroradiology, prepared a report in which his impression was a "[n]ormal MRI cervical spine." Dr. Siddiqui performed a C4–C5 fusion surgery on Castro on June 17, 2019. On September 21, 2020, Dennis Gutzman, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, evaluated Castro for pain associated with her left shoulder. Castro testified that Dr. Gutzman recommended surgery to treat her left shoulder pain.

Before trial, Schlumberger attacked the qualifications and foundational reliability of Dr. Siddiqui's and Dr. Gutzman's causation opinions. Similarly, Castro attacked the qualifications of Dr. Sonnier to render opinions related to the recommendation of surgical treatment. The trial court limited the causation opinions of Dr. Siddiqui and Dr. Gutzman but not that of Dr. Sonnier.

At trial, Schlumberger defended against Castro's claims by positing that the accident did not proximately cause her any injuries that would have necessitated the medical care that she received. It also posited that Castro suffered from preexisting neck and shoulder conditions. Schlumberger retained Frank Garcia, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, as a testifying expert. On June 14, 2019, Dr. Garcia performed an independent medical examination of Castro. Dr. Garcia testified that the June 12, 2019, MRI showed nothing that warranted the June 17, 2019, surgical treatment performed by Dr. Siddiqui. Both Dr. Siddiqui and Dr. Garcia agreed that the C4–C5 level of Castro's cervical spine evidenced signs of disc degeneration and osteophytes, which are bone spurs. Dr. Siddiqui acknowledged that an assault by Jeremy Lee Mata, Castro's boyfriend, on October 3, 2015, which broke one of Castro's ribs, "potentially" could have caused a disc herniation. As for Castro's left shoulder, Dr. Garcia reviewed a July 28, 2017 note by an emergency care physician, which provides, "Patient also is having some left shoulder pain which she has intermittently. No history of trauma but does have four young children with her and she is lifting one or more of the children most of the time."

Before the case was submitted to the jury, the trial court granted STC's motion for directed verdict on Castro's theories of negligent hiring, training, and supervision and her claim for gross negligence. The first question in the jury charge asked: Did the negligence, if any, of Christopher Jones proximately cause the injuries in question? The jury unanimously answered, "No." The trial court rendered a take nothing judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict. Castro timely appealed from the trial court's judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Evidentiary Rulings¹

Castro's first issue consists of four sub-issues. Regarding the first two rulings, Castro contends that the trial court erred by granting Schlumberger's motion to limit the causation opinion of Dr. Siddiqui and the causation opinion and surgical cost estimate of Dr. Gutzman. Third, Castro contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to limit the testimony of Dr. Sonnier. Fourth, Castro contends that the trial court erred by sustaining Schlumberger's objection to the certified driving records of Jones.

We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence — including expert testimony — for an abuse of discretion. Fleming v. Wilson , 610 S.W.3d 18, 21 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam) ; Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins , 47 S.W.3d 486, 499 (Tex. 2001).

Causation is an essential element of Castro's negligence claim. Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto , 288 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. 2009) (stating that causation is an element of negligence). To constitute evidence of causation, a medical expert's opinion must rest in reasonable medical probability. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye , 907 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex. 1995). In other words, "the ultimate standard of proof on the causation issue ‘is whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the negligent act or omission is shown to be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm and without which the harm would not have occurred.’ " Id. (quoting Kramer v. Lewisville Mem'l Hosp. , 858 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tex. 1993) ). We must look past an expert's use of magic words, like "based on reasonable medical probability," to the substance of the expert's testimony in determining whether it qualifies as some evidence of causation. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner , 953 S.W.2d 706, 711–12 (Tex. 1997). Importantly, when the evidence demonstrates that "there are other plausible causes of the injury or condition that could be negated, the plaintiff must offer evidence excluding those causes with reasonable certainty." Id. at 720 ; see also Jelinek v. Casas , 328 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex. 2010).

1. Dr. Siddiqui

Before trial, Schlumberger moved to limit Dr. Siddiqui from testifying that the December 8, 2017 motor vehicle accident proximately caused a cervical disc herniation, which in turn necessitated a surgery to fuse the C4–C5 level disc. Schlumberger's argument was twofold. First, it argued that Dr. Siddiqui lacked the requisite biomechanical qualifications to render a causation opinion. Second, it argued that Dr. Siddiqui's causation opinion was unreliable because he had not accounted for the 2015 assault and the specific forces produced by the December 8, 2017 accident. Castro responded by arguing that, although she was choked during the 2015 assault, she suffered no injury to her neck from it as evidenced by the emergency department records from eight days after the assault. Castro also argued that orthopedic surgeons opine "all the time" that "there was no acute complaint prior to this injury and she has an acute complaint after the injury. Because of that, there's no other cause that could have caused this herniation or pain other than the trauma." At the conclusion of the pretrial hearing, the trial court held:

I think it's proper for [Dr. Siddiqui] to testify that [Castro] had this injury. In his medical opinion he can I guess testify if he thinks it's a new injury or not. Is this injury years old from 2015 or is it, no, this looks like it's fairly new. I think he's qualified to testify to those things ... I don't think it's improper for him to say it is consistent with someone who has been in a vehicle accident. But saying that particular model of vehicle sustained this type of damage, that tells me that, yes, this absolutely caused it, I don't think that line of testimony is proper for him. So that's my ruling on that.

Before the jury, Dr. Siddiqui testified:

CASTRO'S COUNSEL : And based upon

...