BEAUMONT – The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Charles Curtis Nowell Jr., Mediq-PRN Life Support Services Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Hill-Rom Holdings Inc. and Hill-Rom Co. Inc. (relators), after the 60th District Court of Jefferson County denied their motion to dismiss for want of prosecution in a personal injury case involving a car accident.
The court found April 5 that the relators did not show that the trial court "clearly abused its discretion" by denying their motion for dismissal.
Martha Henson filed the suit against the relators for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in a car accident in January 2008. Henson claimed nearly $22,000 in medical expenses and more than $1,500 in lost wages as damages in the suit, the opinion states. The relators filed an answer in February 2010.
"In January 2017, a newly elected trial judge assumed responsibility for the court. After relators’ telephone inquiry regarding the status of the case, the trial court set the case on the trial docket for April 2018," the opinion states.
Henson added new medical records in June 2010 and again in January 2018. She also added her expert witness during that time and her attorney "immediately provided the medical records affidavits and designated experts" once the witness received notice of the trial setting from the court, according to opinion.
The relators filed a motion to dismiss and for a continuance in January 2018. The relators argued that the delay showed conscious indifference to the case.
The court noted that a writ of mandamus is necessary when there is a clear abuse of discretion by a trial court, such as failing to apply the law correctly.
In this case, the court found that the district court had sufficient facts "to enable the trial court to conclude that the delay was not attributable to conscious indifference but that the lawsuit had not proceeded to trial because both the trial court and plaintiff’s counsel had inadvertently lost track of the case," the opinion states.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Hollis Horton argued that "the Rules of Judicial Administration that applied to Henson’s case required that her case be finally resolved within an 18-month period." And since the case dragged on for nearly eight years, there is warrant to grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
Judge Charles Kreger delivered the majority opinion.