Un
of

fic

ial

 C

op
y

 O

ffic

e 

of

 C

hr

is 

Da

nie

l D

ist
ric
t C
ler
k

7/9/2018 9:20 AM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 25814162
By: Justin Fitzgerald
Filed: 7/9/2018 9:20 AM

 the patient is under the primary management of the critical care team. Dr. Rios, as a hospitalist, is
not a critical care provider and he is upset that when his patients are transferred to the Intensive
Care Unit to receive a higher level of care, he is no longer the primary physician. As the court can
well imagine, this hardly means the patient is receiving a lower level of care. However, Dr. Rios
no longer bills for these patients, although there is nothing prohibiting him frg?nsulting on all
patient matters, but he is precluded from attempting to override the Ragig?sponse Team or the
critical care orders. This is done solely for patient safety. $62

3. Dr. Rios? Request for Temporary Restraining 0? completely inappropriate in
this situation. To seek a temporary restraining order, the Pl@1 must set forth a claim for actual
and substantial, or a real, affirmative prospect of aval or substantial injury. Parkemindus
Inc. v. Garton, 619 S. W. 2d 428, 430 APP. Amarillo 1981, no writ). An
injunction should not issue when the shows that at most, Plaintiff will suffer
inconvenience. Northcuttv. Warren, 326 10 (TEX.CIV.APP. ?Texarkana 1959, ref. 
Furthermore, an injunction will to prevent merely speculative harm. See Camarena v.
Tex. Employment Comm 754 @V2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988). Plaintiff Rios has shown no
immediate harm to him or a?e else. He ?les this lawsuit in 2016 wherein he complained that
he was retaliated questioning the Rapid Response System in place at St. Luke?s.
However, despiteggi?gaim of retaliation, Dr. Rios has never been suspended or had his privileges
revoked in any?nion Likewise, Plaintiff Rios is not being suspended or having his privileges
unrealistically restricted in any case at present. In fact, he is still able to consult with all his patients
with the only restriction being he may no longer attempt to override the Rapid Response Team or
critical care orders. Consequently, Dr. Rios has failed to show the requirements necessary for a

Temporary Restraining Order.

4. By his request for a Temporary Restraining Order, Dr. Rios is effectively asking
this court to weigh in on the issue of patient safety and the procedures designed to maximize patient
safety at Defendant?s hospital. By granting Plaintiff?s Request for a TRO in the fashion he has

requested, this court could conceivably put patients at risk in the Defendant?s hospital. That cannot





111. Conclusion

5. In sum, Plaintiff? 3 Request for a TRO IS completely ipgpgopriate 1n a case like this.

He has shown no possibility of irreparable, immediate harm. 6m 5 had a lawsuit pending now

for several years in which he makes essentially the same cla>@ Consequently, he has a more than

adequate remedy at law and has failed to meet the vent requirements for injunctive relief.
Consequently, his request for TRO should be den?

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSI D, Defendant, CHI St. Luke?s Health Baylor

College of Medicine Medical Center pra?that Plaintiff?s Request for Temporary Request for

Restraining Order be denied and @011 other and further relief to which it may show itself

entitled. 
(po

Respectfully submitted,

 

SCOTT, CLAWATER HOUSTON, L.L.P.

o? By 

John P. Scott

Texas Bar No. 17901900


P. Avril de Guzman
Texas Bar NO. 24045963
2727 Allen Parkway, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77019?213 3
Telephone (713) 650?6600
Facsimile (713) 579?1599

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
CHI ST. HEALTH BAYLOR
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE MEDICAL CENTER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instruQQnt has been provided
to all counsel of record in accordance with the applicable Texas Rules ivil Procedure on this

4L day of July 2018. 


John P. Scorn.

John P. Scott o@