Supreme Court

In re Richardson Motorsports Ltd.

• Case number: 22-1167
• Legal category: Procedure-PreTrial
• Subtype: Discovery
• Set for oral argument: January 30, 2024

Case Summary

The issue in this case is whether E.B.’s healthcare records are privileged from discovery when E.B. is seeking mental-anguish damages in a negligence and bystanderrecovery suit.

Ten-year-old E.B. was injured, and her younger brother was killed, in an ATV rollover accident. E.B. and her parents sued the seller of the ATV, Richardson Motorsports, and other defendants. E.B.’s claims are for negligence and bystander recovery, for which she seeks mental-anguish and other damages. In her initial disclosures, E.B. designated a clinical psychologist and her pediatrician as fact
witnesses and nonretained testifying experts. At one defendant’s request, E.B. produced unredacted healthcare records from those providers without objection.

Two years later, Richardson subpoenaed E.B.’s psychologist and pediatrician for updated records related to their treatment of E.B. for psychological issues. E.B. filed motions to quash, arguing that the physician–patient privilege in Texas Rule of
Evidence 509 and the mental-health-information privilege in Rule 510 shield the records from discovery. E.B. then stated at the oral hearing that she would withdraw her designation of the doctors as testifying witnesses, though she has never amended her discovery responses to do so. The trial court denied the motions and ordered that the records be produced.

A split panel of the court of appeals granted E.B.’s mandamus petition and directed the trial court to vacate its orders and to grant E.B.’s motions to quash. The majority held that the records are not discoverable under the privileges’ patient–litigation exception, which applies when a party relies on the patient’s mental or emotional condition as part of a claim or defense. The majority characterized E.B.’s
bystander claim as involving a routine claim for mental-anguish damages, which courts have held does not trigger the exception. The court rejected Richardson’s argument that the “shock” element of E.B.’s bystander claim triggers the exception.

In its petition for writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court, Richardson challenges the court of appeals’ holding that the patient–litigation exception does not apply and argues that E.B. waived the privileges’ application by designating her providers as testifying witnesses and producing some of their records. The Court set the petition for oral argument.

Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.