in Re Michael Medina
Relators, 55 individuals referred to as "the Medina Plaintiffs," filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order authorizing independent medical examinations (IMEs) to assess their physical and mental injuries. The Medina Plaintiffs are workers who suffered injuries from the British Petroleum Texas City Refinery explosion and subsequently sued their former attorney, Ammons, for legal malpractice, alleging he settled their personal injury suit before their future medical care was resolved and without fully assessing their claims. Ammons sought IMEs for all 55 plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering physical IMEs for all plaintiffs, as their physical condition was in controversy due to the "suit-within-a-suit" nature of the malpractice claim. However, the appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a global order for psychological IMEs for all plaintiffs, as the evidence did not show that all plaintiffs asserted mental injury beyond the normal distress accompanying physical injury, nor had they designated psychological experts. The Court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus regarding the psychological IMEs, requiring the trial judge to rescind that portion of the order.