Opinion

Gustafson v. Chambers

  • 871 S.W.2d 938
  • 1994 WL 68907
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Jun 7, 1994
Status
Published
On the bench
O'connor, Parrott and Wilson
Cited by
10 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.3%

recognizing that rule 510(d)(5) allowed plaintiff, in malpractice action, to use physician’s mental health records as evidence that physician was impaired by intoxicant abuse during time he treated plaintiff

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that rule 510(d)(5) allowed plaintiff, in malpractice action, to use physician’s mental health records as evidence that physician was impaired by intoxicant abuse during time he treated plaintiff

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING ON MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE INITIALS FOR NAME IN OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On motion for rehearing of motion to substitute initials for name in opinion, J.P., the real party in interest, moves the Court to substitute his initials for his name in the body of our opinion on relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We grant the motion.

In the lawsuit from which the mandamus action arose, relators allege intoxicant abuse by J.P. proximately caused Mrs. Gustafson personal injury. Relators brought the mandamus action to obtain production of certain documents they sought in an effort to support their intoxicant abuse allegations.

In his motion, which is unopposed, J.P. gives his sworn opinion that the prejudicial nature of relators’ allegation could substantially and irrevocably harm his medical practice.

The legislature has granted us authority to refer to parties by their initials or by fictitious names in limited circumstances. See, for example, Tex.Fam.Code § 11.19(d) (Vernon 1986), which permits an appellate court, in appeals from suits affecting the parent-child relationship, to identify the parties by initials or fictitious names. This original proceeding is not such a case, however.

Nevertheless, courts have substituted initials or pseudonyms for party’s names in their opinions without basing such a procedure on statutory authority. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 120-21, n. 4, 5 , 93 S.Ct. 705, 710-11, n. 4, 5 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) (pseudonyms used for single woman and married couple challenging the constitutionality of a criminal abortion statute); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S., 808 S.W.2d 668, 668-72 (Tex.App. — Austin 1991), aff'd, 858 S.W.2d 374 (Tex.1993) (initials used to refer to parties involved in dispute over whether homeowner’s policy covered claim for negligent exposure to herpes); Harris County D.A. 's Office v. D.W.B., 860 S.W.2d 719, 719-722 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (initials used in the style of the case for the name of a party who had sought expunction of criminal records); L.S. v. State, 867 S.W.2d 838, 838-46 (Tex.App.— Austin 1993, no writ) (initials used to refer to mentally retarded adult appealing order extending an involuntary commitment to a state hospital).

Accordingly, we ORDER J.P.’s initials substituted for his name in our earlier opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.