7/24/2015 10:00:28 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 6223622
By: MARCELLA WILES
Filed: 7/24/2015 10:00:28 PM

CAUSE NO. 2015-23764
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
TEXAS
HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT
HOUSTON, BELLA PATEL, M.D.
F.C.C.P., RICHARD W. SMALLING,
M.D. PH.D., RACKSHUNDA MAJID,
M.D., AND FRANCISCO FUENTES,
M.D.

165TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Da

(DEFENDANT)

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

ist
ric
t C
ler
k

VS.

l D

(PLAINTIFF)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

nie

TOMAS G. RIOS, M.D.

is 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION

 C

hr

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

of

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Tomas G. Rios, M.D. (“Dr. Rios”) and files this his First

ffic

e 

Amended Petition and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

 O

I. DISCOVERY

op
y

Dr. Rios intends that discovery be conducted under Level 3 and requests that the Court

II. PARTIES

fic

ial

 C

implement a docket control or scheduling order.

Un
of

Plaintiff, Tomas G. Rios, M.D. is a resident of Harris County, Texas.
Defendant, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, (“UT Health
Science Center”) is a medical school and/or other business entity that is licensed to do business
in Texas and it may be served with process by serving its President, Dr. Giuseppe Colasurdo at
7000 Fannin Street, Suite 1460, Houston, Texas 77030, at the Office of Legal Affairs, or by
serving any Vice President.
_____________________________________________
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition

Page 1

 Defendant, Richard W. Smalling, M.D. PhD, (“Dr. Smalling”) is an individual who may
be served with process at his usual place of business at 6410 Fannin Street, Suite 600, Houston,
Texas 77030.
Defendant, Bela Patel, M.D. F.C.C.P., (“Dr. Patel”) is an individual who may be served

ist
ric
t C
ler
k

with process at her usual place of business at 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 1.150, Houston, Texas
77030.

Defendant, Ruckshanda Majid, M.D., (“Dr. Majid”) is an individual who may be served

l D

with process at her usual place of business at 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 1.150, Houston, Texas

nie

77030.

Da

Defendant, Francisco Fuentes, M.D., (“Dr. Fuentes”) is an individual who may be served

hr

is 

with process at his usual place of business at 6410 Fannin Street, Suite 600, Houston, Texas

 C

77030.

e 

of

Collectively Dr. Smalling, Dr. Patel, Dr. Majid and Dr. Fuentes are referred to as “Doctor

III. JURISDICTION

op
y

 O

ffic

Defendants.”

 C

This Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the amount in controversy exceeds
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over

ial

this Court’s minimum jurisdictional requirements.

fic

$1,000,000.00, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest,

Un
of

and attorney fees.

Venue is proper in Harris County under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
15.002 because all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

_____________________________________________
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition

Page 2

 IV. FACTS
On or about March 2013, Dr. Rios accepted an appointment with UT Health Science
Center for the year of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. Dr. Rios is a native Texan who grew
up in El Paso, Texas. He is the youngest of four children. Dr. Rios has an intimate appreciation

ist
ric
t C
ler
k

for the opportunities afforded to himself and others by the University of Texas System. In total,
over 14 members of his family including himself, have been recipients of an educational degree
by a UT System School. It was because of this pride that Dr. Rios accepted the appointment

l D

with UT Health Science Center.

nie

Acting on his duty as a physician, on February 10, 2014, Dr. Rios wrote a complaint to

Da

the UT Health Science Center compliance office reporting issues relating to patient

hr

is 

endangerment, quality improvement, and other issues that were present during his overnight

 C

calls. It is his requirement by law to report illegal, unprofessional, or unethical conduct.

e 

of

Following the letter, the individual Doctor Defendants began taking steps to discredit Dr.

ffic

Rios’ reputation and harm his future as a medical doctor. The Doctor Defendants published false

Subsequently, the Doctor Defendants published false and misleading

 C

professional career.

op
y

 O

statements in an effort to have his contract terminated, and in an effort to interfere with his

ial

statements about him to the Texas Medical Board which resulted in a substantial delay in his

Un
of

fic

receiving his license, and hindered his ability to make a living in his chosen profession.
V. CAUSE OF ACTION 1 – Breach of Contract

Dr. Rios repeats and re-alleges the facts and allegations set forth in the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
Dr. Rios contracted with UT Health Science Center on July 1, 2013. Dr. Rios performed
all of his obligations under the agreement and was ready, willing, and able to continue doing so.
_____________________________________________
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition

Page 3

 After reporting the issues described above to the compliance office, UT Health Science Center
thereafter rescinded his appointment for a following year. As a direct, proximate, and
consequential result, Dr. Rios was deprived of his salary for the following year. As such, Dr.
Rios seeks damages as a result of the breach, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

ist
ric
t C
ler
k

UT Health Science Center is a local government entity under Section 271.152 of the
Texas Local Government Code. Section 271.152 was enacted “to loosen the immunity bar so
that all local governmental entities that have been given or are given the statutory authority to
A “local

l D

enter contracts shall not be immune from suits arising from those contracts.”

nie

governmental entity” is defined as “a political subdivision of this state, other than a county or a

Da

unit of state government, as that term is defined by Section 2260.001, Government Code. Tex.

hr

is 

Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. Section 271.151(3)(C). Since UT Health Science Center is a local

 C

government entity, the legislature clearly and unambiguously intended to waive their immunity

e 

of

from suit for contractual claims covered under Local Government Code Section 271.152.

 O

ffic

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 2
Tortious Interference with an Existing Contract against Doctor Defendants

op
y

Dr. Rios has a valid contract with UT Health Science Center. Dr. Smalling, Dr. Majid,

 C

and Dr. Patel willfully and intentionally interfered with that contract by making false statements

fic

ial

about Dr. Rios. As a result of the interference, Dr. Rios was injured and incurred actual damages

Un
of

through the loss of employment and future employment
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION 3
Tortious Interference with Future Relations against Doctor Defendants

Based on Dr. Rios’s academic and work history, there was a reasonable probability that
he would have entered into a business relationship with a hospital following receipt of his
medical license. Dr. Smalling, Dr. Majid, Dr. Patel, and Dr. Fuentes individually, intentionally
_____________________________________________
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition

Page 4

 interfered with Dr. Rios’s relationship by submitting false information to the Texas Medical
Board. The Doctor Defendants’ conduct as independently tortious or unlawful, and as a result of
Dr. Rios’s complaints of wrongdoing at the hospital. Dr. Rios was injured as a result of the
Doctor Defendants’ actions and suffered actual damage and loss of future income. In addition,

ist
ric
t C
ler
k

Dr. Rios was not given proper credit for his time at UT Health Science and is therefore inhibited
in his abilities to obtain privileges at certain hospitals in make additional income.

VIII. CAUSE OF ACTION 4 – Defamation against Doctor Defendants

l D

The Doctor Defendants published a statement of fact to the Texas Medical Board on or

nie

about June 23, 2014. The statements referred to Dr. Rios in a defamatory manner and were

Da

patently false. The Doctor Defendants were acting with actual malice and negligence with

hr

is 

regard to the truth of the statements, and were doing so in retaliation for Dr. Rios raising

 C

concerns regarding patient welfare etc. as required by law. As a result of the Doctor Defendants’

e 

of

actions, Dr. Rios was substantially delayed in obtaining is medical license and as a result lost out

ffic

on income and spent time trying to clear his good name and reputation.

op
y

 O

IX. CAUSE OF ACTION 5 – Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 by Doctor Defendants

 C

The Doctor Defendants, in their individual capacities, violated Dr. Rios’ first amendment

ial

rights for exercising his free speech to report a wrongdoing which is a protected right under the

fic

First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section

Un
of

8. Thereafter, the Doctor Defendants retaliated against Dr. Rios for engaging in his protected
activity by making false statements that eventually led to his contract being terminated. These
actions violated his free speech rights and were not conduct for which his employment contract
could be legally terminated. The Doctor Defendants concocted fraudulent and false statements
against Dr. Rios in retaliation for him engaging in protected activity. The Doctor Defendants
_____________________________________________
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition

Page 5

 were personally involved in the constitutional deprivation and there was a sufficient causal
connection between their wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. The Doctor
Defendants should be made to pay for their violation of Dr. Rios’ Civil Rights.
X. Conditions Precedent

ist
ric
t C
ler
k

All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claim for relief have been performed or have
occurred.

XI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

l D

Dr. Rios asks for Defendant to pay it damages for the money paid for services described

nie

above, that were not rendered, and the consequential damages that arose from Defendants’ acts.

Da

For the reasons set forth in this Original Petition and Request for Disclosure, Dr. Rios

hr

is 

asks that the Court issue citation for Defendants to appear and answer, and that Dr. Rios be

 C

awarded a judgment against Defendant for the following:
Actual damages.

b.

Prejudgment and postjudgment interest.

c.

Court costs.

d.

Attorney fees.

e.

All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.

Un
of

fic

ial

 C

op
y

 O

ffic

e 

of

a.

_____________________________________________
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition

Page 6

 Respectfully submitted,
WAGNER SÁENZ DORITY, L.L.P.

l D

ist
ric
t C
ler
k

By:_/s/ Jeremy D. Saenz____________
Jeremy D. Saenz
State Bar No. 24033028
jsaenz@wsdllp.com
1010 Lamar Street
Suite 425
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone:
(713) 554-8450
Facsimile:
(713) 554-8451

Da

nie

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Tomas G. Rios, M.D.

is 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 C

hr

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the aforementioned document has been
sent in accordance with the law, on this the 24th day of July, 2015, to:

/s/ Jeremy Saenz____________
Jeremy Saenz

Un
of

fic

ial

 C

op
y

 O

ffic

e 

of

Frank A. King
Assistant Attorney General
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Frank.king@texasattorneygeneral.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

_____________________________________________
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition

Page 7