|
The Texas Supreme Court recently issued a significant opinion clarifying how trial courts should handle partially controverted affidavits under Section 18.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
In Ortiz v. Nelapatla, the Court held that when a defendant serves a counteraffidavit challenging only part of a plaintiff’s medical expenses, the unchallenged portions of the plaintiff’s affidavit remain admissible and constitute sufficient evidence of reasonableness and necessity. The decision reverses a Dallas Court of Appeals opinion that had effectively treated any compliant counteraffidavit as eliminating the evidentiary value of the entire affidavit.
For insurers and defense counsel, the ruling provides important guidance on how targeted counteraffidavits should be drafted and how they may affect damages exposure at trial.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from a low-speed parking lot accident in McKinney. The plaintiff, Tatia Ortiz, submitted three Section 18.001 affidavits supporting medical expenses from three separate providers—Addison Interventional Pain, LifeSciences Imaging Partners, and Synergy Sports Rehabilitation.
The defendant served two counteraffidavits—one challenged portions of imaging charges from LifeSciences Imaging Partners while the other challenged portions of chiropractic and rehabilitation charges from Synergy Sports Rehabilitation.
Notably, neither counteraffidavit disputed every charge. Instead, the defense experts specifically identified amounts they considered excessive while affirmatively acknowledging that other portions of the charges were reasonable and necessary.
At trial, however, the trial court excluded the plaintiff’s affidavits in their entirety because they had been controverted. The trial court also excluded the defendant’s counteraffidavits as hearsay. As a result, the plaintiff recovered only the uncontested medical expenses associated with Addison Interventional Pain.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed.
The Texas Supreme Court’s Holding
The Texas Supreme Court emphasized that Section 18.001 was enacted to streamline proof of medical expenses and avoid unnecessary live expert testimony where reasonableness and necessity are not genuinely disputed. The key takeaway from the opinion is straightforward: A counteraffidavit only negates the evidentiary value of the specific portions it controverts—not the entire affidavit.
According to the Court, uncontroverted portions of a Section 18.001 affidavit remain admissible and continue to constitute legally sufficient evidence of reasonableness and necessity. Moreover, plaintiffs may redact controverted charges and submit only uncontested portions to the jury. Importantly, the Court also held that counteraffidavits themselves may be admissible when they affirmatively attest as to what amounts are reasonable.
Going forward, insurers and defense counsel should evaluate Section 18.001 strategy with increased attention to exactly what is—and is not—being controverted.
| 
