In this edition of Litigation Roundup, the widow of an oilfield worker sues Apache Corp. over her husband’s heat-related death, lawyers for the driver of a vandalized Tesla tout a first-of-its-kind civil suit, and Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan takes aim at the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act in a concurring opinion where the court wiped out a $28.7 million jury award.
The Litigation Roundup is a weekly feature highlighting the work Texas lawyers are doing inside and outside the state. Have a development we should include next week? Please let us know at tlblitigation@texaslawbook.net.
Tarrant County District Court
Civil Suit Filed by Tesla Owner Whose Car was Keyed
A man who identified as John Doe because of fears of retribution has filed suit against a man he alleges keyed his Tesla Model X at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.
Rafael Hernandez is named as the defendant in the lawsuit stemming from a March 13 incident that was captured on the Tesla’s built-in cameras. Doe alleges there was “significant damage to the passenger side of the vehicle,” namely a “deep engraving or indentation” running along the length of the vehicle.
“Defendant’s actions and conduct were clearly without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent,” the suit alleges. “The incident has captured the attention of nationwide media outlets, including social media.”
The lawsuit references a call to action Donald Trump Jr. put out on social media that included a photo of the defendant, who was labeled in the post as a “terror suspect,” and sought help identifying the man.
“Internet do your thing!” the president’s son proclaimed.
The lawsuit was filed March 25 and is seeking more than $1 million in damages, including damages for emotional distress, mental anguish and past and future loss of earnings or earning capacity.
Doe is represented by Steven S. Schulte, Andrew P. Bias and Majed Nachawati of Nachawati Law Group. The lawyers have touted the case as a first-of-its-kind civil lawsuit filed over damage done to a Tesla as a result of the so-called “Tesla Takedown” movement, led by opponents of Elon Musk’s involvement in the federal government.
Counsel information for Hernandez wasn’t available Tuesday.
The case number is 141-363070-25.
Harris County District Court
Bicyclist Injured in a Hit-and-Run Awarded $56M
The family of a bicyclist who as a teen was struck and left with permanent injuries as he crossed the street has been awarded millions in damages by a Harris County jury.
The plaintiff, Ezekiel Hernandez, was riding his bike in February 2016 when he was struck. He was 13 at the time. According to the lawsuit, he was crossing the street at an intersection in Pasadena when John Loftin III struck him with his vehicle and then fled the scene. Hernandez suffered numerous injuries, including a permanent traumatic brain injury, pulmonary contusions and broken bones.
Harris County District Judge Michael Gomez presided over the two-day trial that ended in a verdict March 19. The jury deliberated for about two-and-a-half hours before awarding a total of $16 million for past and future mental anguish, pain, disfigurement and impairment, $20 million for future medical care and $20 million in exemplary damages.
Hernandez filed suit in September 2016 against the driver, John Loftin, and the owner of the car, Maria Reyes. The jury found they were both liable.
Hernandez’ family is represented by James Amaro, Matt Elwell and Michelle Acosta of Amaro Law Firm.
Reyes is represented by George L. Powell of The Powell Law Firm.
The case number is 2016-62318.
Apache Sued Over Oilfield Worker’s Heat-Related Death
Apache Corporation has been hit with a lawsuit seeking more than $ 1 million in damages for its alleged negligence that led to the heat-related death of a worker in the Permian Basin.
Brenda L. Jones filed suit on behalf of her husband, William Mickey Jones, who in July 2024 fell ill in the field in New Mexico when temperatures near the hydraulic fracturing pumps where he was working exceeded 100 degrees.
“Apache knew, or should have known of the severe risk of heat-related illness posed by these extreme temperature conditions,” the suit alleges. “Despite this awareness, Apache failed to provide essential safety measures such as cooling stations, adequate hydration, ice baths, cooling trailers or cooldown systems. Additionally, Apache did not provide any qualified medical personnel on-site to respond to potential heat-related illnesses or emergencies.”
William Jones began displaying symptoms of heat stroke and was then found unconscious in his vehicle with a weak pulse, according to the lawsuit, which alleges that his coworkers “negligently and improperly canceled previously requested emergency medical transportation.”
He was placed under a sheet, the suit alleges, and died soon after. The suit brings claims for negligence, gross negligence and wrongful death.
The lawsuit was originally filed March 24 and was refiled March 31. Online court records indicated both cases were active on Tuesday. One was assigned to Harris County District Judge Cheryl Thornton, and one was assigned to Harris County District Judge Kristen Brauchle Hawkins.
Jones is represented by Michael Darling of Falcon Law Group.
The case numbers are 2025-19675 and 2025-21526.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Panel Undoes $28.7M Award in FCA Case
A $28.7 million final judgment against Peripheral Vascular Associates stemming from false claims for vascular ultrasound services the company allegedly billed Medicare for has been wiped out by a three-judge panel that determined a new trial is needed.
PVA employees Tiffany Montcrief, Roberta A. Martinez and Alicia Burnett brought the lawsuit on behalf of the government in 2017, and the government declined to intervene. After a five-day trial in February 2022, a jury determined PVA submitted thousands of false claims to Medicare for the services, causing about $2.7 million in damages to the government.
The relators argued PVA should be hit with statutory penalties between $64 million and $128 million but agreed to accept a judgment that included just $21.8 million in statutory penalties, according to the opinion, “to obviate any problem under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.”
PVA argued the government hadn’t suffered any damages because “it [was] not an issue about whether PVA would be paid for [its] services, but simply when.” U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez wrote that he couldn’t “simply disregard the fact that the services for which PVA submitted claims were actually performed in every case” but noted that “payment today is not the same as payment tomorrow.”
Deciding that the difference between payment now and payment later is interest, Judge Rodriguez set aside the jury’s damages verdict, requested briefing from the parties on what damages would look like under that model and entered a final judgment totaling about $28.7 million.
The Fifth Court of Appeals determined Judge Rodriguez improperly granted summary judgment to the relators regarding one set of claims and agreed with PVA that the court’s reliance on posttrial expert declarations to recalculate damages was improper.
“We agree with PVA that the district court abused its discretion and that a new trial is required to calculate damages,” the panel wrote in the March 28 opinion, determining “it was improper for the district court to allow relators to submit additional proof — their expert declaration — and to rely on that proof, which was never shown to the jury, to enter a damages award.”
Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote a concurring opinion taking aim at what he called the “constitutional flaws in the FCA’s qui tam device.” Judge Duncan wrote that the FCA “defies” the “exclusive vesting of executive power twice over.”
The FCA violates the Appointments Clause because it allows private parties to sue on behalf of the United States, he wrote, and it also violates the take care clause because it allows Congress to “circumvent the Executive’s check and to have its laws enforced directly by its own private bounty hunters.”
“This case puts the FCA’s flaws on vivid display,” he wrote, adding that in his view the Constitution doesn’t allow “this outsourcing of prosecutorial power to a private person.”
“Yet that is precisely what happens when a private person brings a qui tam action under the FCA,” Judge Duncan concluded. “I respectfully concur, while hoping this anomalous practice will someday come to an end.”
Judges Catharina Haynes and Cory T. Wilson also sat on the panel.
The relators are represented by Misty Annette Hataway-Coné of Coné PLLC.
Peripheral Vascular Associates is represented by Joshua S. Smith of Beck Redden, Sean McKenna of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough and David Prichard of Prichard Young.
The case number is 24-50176.