In our de novo review of a trial court’s summary judgment, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, crediting evidence favorable to the non-movant if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. The second sets the motion for hearing on a date approximately two months after the “submission date.” 3 directed verdict, and we apply the same legal sufficiency standard of review. The first sets the motion for submission on the briefs. Standard of Review A no-evidence motion for summary judgment is essentially a pretrial motion for 2 The record contains two orders setting DHR’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment for consideration. Given our disposition on the merits of the issue raised, it is not necessary to further address DHR’s technical arguments. 2 DHR further complains that a website printout should not have been considered on the ground that it was unauthenticated. DHR also complains that, in the trial court, Henry filed deposition excerpts on the date that the no-evidence motion for summary judgment was set for submission, and those excerpts should be deemed untimely. DHR complains that Henry’s appellate brief fails to provide appropriate citations to the record in its statement of facts and argument sections. DHR’s Technical Arguments Before addressing the merits of Henry’s argument, we turn to technical arguments advanced by DHR. DISCUSSION The gist of Henry’s argument is that a “transfer” from Level III to Level II is actually a “demotion,” which constitutes an adverse employment action. The trial court granted summary judgment in DHR’s favor. DHR replied that Henry’s response failed to provide evidence that raised a fact issue. Our NICU offers two levels of care: intensive care (Level III) and intermediate care (Level II), both designed to assist with your baby’s healthcare treatment and development. 2 professional training in newborn care, the NICU at The Women’s Hospital at Renaissance was created for sick newborns that need specialized treatment. Henry’s However, Henry She referenced her deposition testimony and attached what appears to be a website printout from “The Women’s Hospital at Renaissance.” It provides in part: With equipment designed for infants and a hospital staff that has 1 Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court’s decision and the basic reasons for it. argued that fact issues existed as to her remaining claims. summary-judgment response conceded that her IIED claim failed. In its motion, DHR contended that Henry had no evidence of an adverse employment decision and that Henry could not maintain a claim for IIED. DHR moved for no-evidence summary judgment. Henry sued DHR, alleging claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotion distress (IIED). After the IV-burn incident, Henry was moved from “Level III” in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to “Level II,” also in the NICU. Third, DHR allegedly accused Henry of falsifying the patient’s medical records in relation to the IV-burn incident. Second, Henry alleges that she was falsely accused of causing an IV burn to a patient. First, Henry alleges that she was denied a request for re-assignment of a difficult patient she had nursed for several days. According to Henry’s original petition, she was assigned as a “Level III nurse tasked to work with the most critically ill babies.” Henry’s petition alleges three negative interactions with DHR personnel. BACKGROUND 1 Henry was and is employed as a nurse at DHR. In two issues, which we treat as one, Henry contends the trial court erred in granting DHR’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment because she presented legally sufficient evidence of an adverse employment action. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Orpha Henry appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Doctor’s Hospital at Renaissance, LTD and RGV Med., L.L.C. On appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL AT RENAISSANCE, LTD AND RGV MED, LLC, Appellee. Total number of ED visits who were seen on the previous calendar day who had a visit related to COVID-19 (meets suspected or confirmed definition or presents for COVID diagnostic testing – do not count patients who present for pre-procedure screening).NUMBER 13-15-00561-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ORPHA HENRY, Appellant, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |