Court Finds That Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Breaking 400 Plaintiff Case Into Trial Groups Of 20 And Abating Discovery As To Remaining Plaintiffs:

1. FACTS OF CASE
   
   

   In Re: Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. et al, 2000 WL 1610213 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi, October 26, 2000,) the Thirteenth Court of Appeals considered whether a trial court abused its discretion in breaking 400 Plaintiffs into trial groups of 20 and abating discovery as to the remaining Plaintiffs. This matter arose out of a toxic tort suit involving over four hundred plaintiffs who were employed at the Parker-Hannifin Corporation's processing plant in McAllen, Texas. These Plaintiffs brought suit in 1994 against numerous defendants alleging personal injuries from exposure to various chemicals manufactured, marketed, sold and/or distributed by the defendants. Discovery was conducted over the next several years.

   In answering interrogatories, the Plaintiffs failed to adequately answer questions regarding the names of the physicians who attributed their conditions to any of the defendants' products. Rather, the Plaintiffs responded that "Plaintiff . . . does not recall the names of any of the medical health care providers attributing the injuries to exposure to Defendants' chemicals nor the dates of treatment. Plaintiff will later supplement if Plaintiff later recalls this information" After numerous discovery motions and hearings, the trial court eventually entered a pre-trial order that (1) allowed the plaintiffs to select twenty plaintiffs to appear first in trial, (2) abated discovery as to all plaintiffs except the initial twenty designated for trial, (3) allowed discovery as to an additional twenty-five plaintiffs, and (4) ostensibly refused to compel plaintiffs to supplement their answers to an interrogatory relating to causation of plaintiffs' injuries. Defendants filed a writ of mandamus seeking relief from the pretrial orders. This case was eventually heard by the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme court entered a ruling directing the Thirteenth Court of Appeals to reconsider a previous ruling in light of Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998).

2. THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN BREAKING NUMEROUS PLAINTIFFS INTO SMALLER TRIAL GROUPS
   
   

   The Thirteenth Court found that trial courts have discretion in managing their court dockets. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court selecting small groups of trial plaintiffs to serve as test cases while abating discovery as to the remaining plaintiffs in order to manage the mass tort case. The court noted:

   Considering the need to manage mass tort litigation, the basic discovery provided to the defendants, and the trial court's providing defendants with a means of attaining discovery from non-trial plaintiffs, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing selection of a small group of plaintiffs and abating additional discovery as to all but the forty-four trial plaintiffs."

3. TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES REGARDING THEIR MEDICAL HISTORY AS IT RELATED TO TOXIC EXPOSURE
   
   

   The defendants in this case contended that the plaintiffs' responses to interrogatories were inadequate because they neither provided the names of any physicians who attributed their injuries to the defendants' chemicals, nor denied that a physician had, in fact, made such a determination. The court concluded that the uniform response by all plaintiffs that they did not recall the names of any physicians who had linked their injuries to the defendants' chemicals and that they did not ask a medical health care provider if the chemicals at the plant caused their medical condition was insufficient and must be supplemented to answer whether a medical determination has been made that an illness was caused by the defendants' products.

   The court further concluded that the medical authorizations, lists of doctors who have treated the plaintiffs, and the injuries described in the plaintiffs' initial disclosures did not provide the defendants with discovery on the issue of causation. Neither did the expert reports provided by the plaintiffs linking some of the products at the plant to various injuries constitute a response to the interrogatory, as none of the reports explain whether a physician has made a medical determination that an illness was caused by a defendant's product.

   Therefore, the court noted that the plaintiffs must answer whether there has been a medical determination attributing their injuries to the defendants' chemicals. If no physician has made such a determination, regardless of plaintiffs' theory of liability, they should answer accordingly.

In mass tort cases it is not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to break the number of plaintiffs into smaller trial groups and abate discovery as to the remaining plaintiffs. However, in cases involving toxic torts, Plaintiffs must adequately answer discovery and provide names of doctors who can testify about identifiable injuries that are caused by identifiable products of toxic tort defendants.

Please feel free to call any of our partners or associates with any questions that you may have at (361) 881-9217 or fax us at (361) 882-9437.