In Re Ganesh Vidyala, LLC D/B/A Kiddie Academy of Harmony v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00009-CV
__________________

IN RE GANESH VIDYALA, LLC D/B/A KIDDIE ACADEMY OF
HARMONY

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23-09-13629-CV
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator, Ganesh Vidyala, LLC d/b/a Kiddie

Academy of Harmony (“Harmony”), seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s

order denying Harmony’s motion for an independent medical examination in a suit

that includes claims for personal injury. We stayed further trial court proceedings

and obtained a response from the Real Parties in Interest, Mark Francis and Vivian

Francis. We conditionally grant mandamus relief.

1
Background

In the trial court, the Francises seek monetary relief over $1,000,000,

including past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses, pain and

suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and mental anguish damages for

themselves and their child. They allege that in August 2023, employees working in

Harmony’s childcare facility left their toddler, E.F., alone in a dark bathroom for up

to four hours. They allege E.F. is experiencing significant separation anxiety,

developmental regression, significant distress, and anxiety.

The Francises’ designation of experts identified Dr. George S. Glass, a

licensed psychiatrist, as a retained expert to provide medical and psychological

testimony about E.F.’s and her parents’ medical and psychological conditions,

treatment and medications, medical causation and injuries, including their medical

and psychological injuries, past and future necessary and reasonable medical and

psychological treatment and medications, past and future impairment, and past and

future mental anguish and emotional distress. The Francises disclosed that at trial

Dr. Glass may offer his opinion that E.F. has suffered some of the symptoms of Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder, including being upset when exposed to reminders of the

trauma, irritable outbursts, avoidance of external reminders, and hypervigilance.

Harmony filed a motion for the trial court to order that E.F. undergo an

independent medical examination in psychiatry by Dr. Mitchell Alan Young, a

2
licensed psychiatrist who is board certified in Child, Adult, and Forensic Psychiatry

and specializes in clinical, administrative, and forensic neuropsychiatry. Harmony

argued E.F.’s mental condition is in controversy because the Francises are using

E.F.’s mental condition in support of their claims and have designated a testifying

expert to opine on the diagnosis and prognosis of E.F.

Harmony supplied a supporting declaration by Dr. Young. His examination

would include a clinical interview, a mental status examination, and the

administration of psychological instruments in common use under similar

circumstances. The examination would include: a developmental, psychosocial, and

sociocultural history; family history, neurodevelopmental history, including pre-

existing, predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and protective factors; review of

symptoms; and mental status examination employing play therapy techniques,

including sensorium, communication and relatedness, behavioral disturbance, mood

and affect, cognitive function, abnormalities of thought and perceptual disturbances.

The initial evaluation to obtain background information would be with the parents

only, which he estimated would be no longer than two hours. The entire examination

of E.F., including a standardized developmental screening, would not take more than

four hours. Dr. Young recommended that the first visit occur for half an hour or less

so the child is familiar with the environment, and subsequent evaluations be held on

two separate occasions to increase reliability of the evaluation.

3
The Francises responded that Harmony failed to demonstrate good cause for

the examination in that Harmony failed to establish a nexus between the condition

in controversy (emotional distress and mental anguish as opposed to a traumatic

brain injury) and the examination sought. They objected that Dr. Young mentioned

the types of examinations he intended to perform without identifying the specific

tests he intended to administer. They objected that the location of the examination

would be in neighboring Harris County, 32 miles from their home. They argued that

Harmony had deposed Mark Francis and had the opportunity to question him

regarding the child’s injuries and his observations of their effect on his child.

In its reply to the Francises’ response to Harmony’s motion to compel an

independent medical examination, Harmony argued Dr. Young’s examination of

E.F. was essential to evaluating the alleged damages and causation issues and,

through the examination, Dr. Young would likely obtain information regarding

E.F.’s understanding of the alleged events, as well as her cognitive and emotional

development, which are relevant to the claim of mental anguish. They argued Dr.

Young had provided specificity regarding his proposed clinical interview and mental

status examination of E.F. They argued since the Francises’ retained expert would

testify that E.F. suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident, and

that she may be more vulnerable to psychiatric problems and substance abuse, the

proposed examination directly relates to the condition in controversy. Harmony

4
argued Dr. Young explained in his affidavit how restricting his analysis to a review

of treatment records would be inadequate to properly address E.F.’s current level of

behavioral or psychosocial functioning, that Dr. Young should not be required to

rely solely upon Mark Francis’s observations, and that denying an in-person

evaluation would severely limit Dr. Young’s ability to contradict the plaintiffs’

expert.

On September 20, 2024, the trial court denied Harmony’s motion to compel

an independent medical examination of E.F.

In a motion for reconsideration, Harmony supplied a declaration from Dr.

Young. In this declaration, Dr. Young identified specific tests that he intended to

conduct, including: (1) Baley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Fourth

Edition; (2) Behavioral Assessment for Children, Third Edition-BASC-3; (3) Social

Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition - SRS-2; (4) Multidimensional Anxiety Scale

for Children, Second Edition - MASC-2; (5) Pediatric ACEs and Related Life-events

Screener (PEARLS); (6) Child Behavior Checklist; (7) PTSD Semi-Structured

Interview and Observation Record; (7) Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment; (8)

PTSD Symptoms in Preschool Aged Children; (9) Traumatic Events Screening

Inventory-Parents; and (10) Trauma Symptom Checklist for Young Children.

Additionally, Harmony supplied an excerpt from Vivian Francis’s deposition in

5
which she revealed that, in addition to their prior Zoom sessions, in October 2024

Dr. Glass performed an in-person examination of E.F. at his Houston office.

Mandamus Standard

“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when the relator shows

that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy

exists.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling amounts to a clear and

prejudicial error of law, or if the trial court fails to correctly analyze or apply the law

to the facts. Id. at 302–03. “The relator must establish that the trial court could have

reasonably reached only one conclusion.” Id. at 303. “The adequacy of an appellate

remedy is determined by balancing the benefits and detriments of mandamus.” Id. at

304. “This balance is heavily circumstantial.” Id.

Rule 204 Examination

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204.1 governs requests for the physical or

mental examination of another party. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1. The trial court may

order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified physician

or to a mental examination by a qualified psychologist “only for good cause” when

the physical or mental condition of a party is in controversy or the party responding

to the motion has designated a psychologist as a testifying expert. See id. 204.1(c).

The good-cause requirement of Rule 204.1 balances the movant’s right to a fair trial

6
and the opposing party’s right to privacy. H.E.B. Grocery, 492 S.W.3d at 303. To

satisfy the good cause requirement, “the movant must (1) show that the requested

examination is relevant to issues in controversy and will produce or likely lead to

relevant evidence, (2) establish a reasonable nexus between the requested

examination and the condition in controversy, and (3) demonstrate that the desired

information cannot be obtained by less intrusive means.” Id.

“When the existence, extent, and cause of an injury are in controversy, an

exam intended to glean information regarding those issues will satisfy the relevance

requirement.” In re Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d 837, 841–42 (Tex. 2022)

(orig. proceeding) (citation omitted). There must be evidence that the requested

examination is directly related to the condition in controversy. Id. at 842.

The Francises allege that because of being left alone in the bathroom for hours,

E.F. is experiencing significant separation anxiety, developmental regression,

significant distress, and anxiety, for which they have sued to recover damages for

past and future necessary and reasonable medical and psychological treatment and

medications, past and future impairment, and past and future mental anguish and

emotional distress. The Francises disclosed in discovery that their retained expert, a

licensed psychiatrist, would provide medical psychological testimony about E.F.’s

medical and psychological conditions, treatment, and medications, medical

causation, and injuries caused by Harmony. Their testifying expert has personally

7
examined E.F. He would testify that E.F. suffers from symptoms of post-traumatic

stress disorder as a result of the incident, including being upset when exposed to

reminders of the trauma, irritable outbursts, avoidance of external reminders, and

hypervigilance. E.F.’s mental condition is in controversy, and she has retained a

testifying expert. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1(c).

The requested examination by Dr. Young will gather the information from

E.F. and her parents to effectively opine on Dr. Glass’s diagnosis of post-traumatic

stress symptoms and E.F.’s alleged separation anxiety, developmental regression,

significant distress, and anxiety. We conclude the requested examination is relevant.

See Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 841–42.

The requested examination would assess E.F.’s understanding of the alleged

events as well as her cognitive and emotional development, which are relevant to the

claim of mental anguish and alleged impairment of her psychological development.

We conclude Harmony established a reasonable nexus between the requested

examination and E.F.’s mental conditions. See H.E.B. Grocery, 492 S.W.3d at 303.

Dr. Young explained that without meeting and assessing E.F. in the same

manner afforded E.F.’s treating clinicians and experts, he will be at a distinct

disadvantage in his evaluation of E.F. Dr. Glass has personally interviewed Mark

and Vivian Francis, performed telemedicine and in-person examinations of E.F., and

has performed a mental status examination on all three. To effectively test Dr.

8
Glass’s opinions and diagnoses, Dr. Young requires an examination that includes

clinical interviews, a mental status evaluation, and the administration of

psychological test instruments in wide and common use. We conclude Harmony

demonstrated that the necessary information cannot be obtained through less

obtrusive means. See Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 842–43.

In balancing the benefits and detriments to determine whether mandamus

relief is appropriate, we consider that Harmony’s defense largely turns on

challenging the cause, nature, and extent of the alleged mental anguish and

psychological and developmental impairment, and that those issues will depend

significantly on competing expert testimony. Allowing Harmony the same

opportunity as the Francises’ expert to fully develop and present his opinion is

necessary to ensure a fair trial. We conclude Harmony has shown that it lacks an

adequate remedy by appeal. See Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d at 843.

Conclusion

We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by denying Harmony’s

motion for an independent medical examination by Harmony’s retained expert

psychiatrist and Harmony lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we lift

our temporary order of March 25, 2025, and we conditionally grant mandamus relief.

We are confident that the trial court will vacate its order of September 20, 2024, and

order that E.F. submit to an independent medical examination to be conducted by

9
Dr. Young at his Houston office, including pre-examination clinical interviews of

Mark and Vivian Francis and an in-person examination of E.F. The writ shall issue

only if the trial court does not comply.

PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 21, 2025
Opinion Delivered May 22, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

10