Regional Specialty Clinic, P.A. v. S.A. Randle & Associates, P.C. and Sarnie A. Randle, Jr.

Summary

This is a concurring and dissenting opinion addressing summary judgment in a dispute between a medical clinic and a lawyer and law firm concerning medical expenses, an assignment of benefits, and a personal-injury settlement. Justice Spain agreed with portions of the court’s disposition but disagreed with affirming summary judgment on the clinic’s money-had-and-received and unjust-enrichment claims, and would have reversed and remanded those claims along with the breach-of-third-party-beneficiary-contract claim.

Holdings

1. Justice Spain would hold that the lawyer's broad no-evidence motion did not comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) because it did not specifically identify the elements as to which there was no evidence. He disagreed with the majority's contrary conclusion.
2. Justice Spain would hold that traditional summary judgment on the unjust-enrichment claim was improper because the lawyer did not state a specific summary-judgment ground directed to that claim in the motion.
3. Justice Spain would hold that the evidence raised a fact issue concerning unjust enrichment and undue advantage, regardless of whether the lawyer knew about the clinic's assignment of benefits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the lawyer's no-evidence summary-judgment motion adequately identified the elements challenged under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) on the clinic's money-had-and-received claim.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted traditional summary judgment on the clinic's unjust-enrichment claim when the motion did not state a specific ground directed to that claim.
3. Whether the appellate court could affirm summary judgment on grounds not expressly presented in the motion.
4. Whether summary judgment should have been reversed on the clinic's money-had-and-received, unjust-enrichment, and breach-of-third-party-beneficiary-contract claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded