WPCG5 2~ ZBVHP LaserJet 5/5M - EnhancedXN\  PXPa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2T>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp     X0Í Í X0Í Í Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#d6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (c#j\  P6;XPH#   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2njItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2H 3!"_PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   ,#j\  P6;XPH# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2#K$%p&pLetter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P&P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2P XP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ Single Space% I J1Document Style&KL` ` ` 2!'q(e0 )e * 2Document Style'M N . 3Document Style( OP 4Document Style) QR 5Document Style**ST   2#+p!,/"-".\#6Document Style+UV` ` ` 7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers,8WX@   8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers-AYZ@` `  ` ` ` 9Document Style.0[ \    2&/#$0$1t%2*&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers/J]^@  ` `  11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers0S_`@  12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1\ab@hh# hhh 13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2ecd@( hh# 2)3'4'5(6n)14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers3nef@- ( 15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers4wgh@pp2 -ppp 16Document Style5Fij *  ׃  17Technical Document Style6&kl  . 2o,7%*8*9F+:+18Technical Document Style7&mn  . 19Technical Document Style8*op    20Technical Document Style9'qr   21Technical Document Style:&st   2 5;,<Q-=-0[.22Technical Document Style;4u$v     23Technical Document Style<&wx  . 24Technical Document Style=&yz  . īXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXd6X@@<6X9`("Courier NewTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P&P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2P XP& A`ArialTTX2=5E53|x  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 970661ă & James Milton Malone, James D. Malone, Milton C. Malone, Phillip G. Malone, and Mary Elizabeth Johnson, Petitioners  *v.ă Christopher Foster, M.D., Bill Christensen, M.D., and Baylor University Medical Center, Respondents   On Application for Writ of Error to the l Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texasă   Argued on December 3, 1997 ă Justice Enoch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Phillips, Justice Gonzalez, Justice Hecht, Justice Spector, Justice Owen, Justice Abbott, and Justice Hankinson join, and in which Justice Baker joins in Parts II and III. Justice Baker filed a concurring opinion.  In this case, the Malones ask us to recognize an independent cause of action for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence by parties to litigation. The court of appeals declined to recognize such a cause of action. 956 S.W.2d 573, 582. In Trevi9o v. Ortega, issued today, we held that Texas does not recognize an independent cause of action for evidence spoliation by persons who are parties to the underlying lawsuit. ___ S.W.2d ___ (Tex. 1998). Because we also reject the Malones other contentions on appeal, we affirm the court of appeals judgment. On December 17, 1990, James M. Malone went to Baylor University Medical Center complaining about difficulty in moving his extremities. Drs. Christopher Foster and Bill Christensen admitted him to the hospital and initially diagnosed Malone with a kidney infection. On December 18, Malone fell in his room. In compliance with hospital policy, Nurse Connie Chason filled out an incident report. Malone claims that he told her he fell because he could not move his legs, but Chason does not recall this statement. In accordance with its incident report retention policy, Baylor destroyed the incident report. Dr. Foster did not find out that Malone could not move his legs until December 20. At this point, Dr. Foster referred Malone to a neurosurgeon. The neurosurgeon determined that Malone had a spinal epidural abscess and required immediate surgery. After surgery, Malone was a quadriplegic. James M. Malone, James D. Malone, Milton C. Malone, Phillip G. Malone and Mary E. Johnson (collectively the Malones) sued Drs. Foster and Christensen and Baylor University Medical Center (collectively Baylor) for medical malpractice and evidence spoliation. The Malones brought both claims in the same suit. Baylor moved for summary judgment asserting, among other things, that evidence spoliation is not a cognizable cause of action in Texas. The trial court granted partial summary judgment d medical malpractice action, the jury reached a takenothing verdict and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. The court of appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment.  I. The Malones assert that Texas recognizes a cause of action for evidence spoliation. As noted above, we held today in Trevi9o that evidence spoliation is not a separate tort in Texas. ___ S.W.2d at ___. II. The Malones also assert that the trial court erred by excluding Sherri Watkinss testimony about the destruction of the hospital incident report. Watkins is an administrator at Baylor University Medical Center and would have testified about Baylors policy of destroying incident reports after six months. The Malones contend that her testimony would have allowed the jury to infer that the incident report was unfavorable to Baylor. The Malones must show that the trial court erred in excluding Watkinss testimony and that the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1; McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tex. 1992). Like any other question of admissibility of evidence, the exclusion or admission of Watkinss testimony is an issue within the trial courts discretion. See Trevi9o, ___ S.W.2d at ___; Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 104(a) (repealed 1998) (current version at Tex. R. Evid. 104(a)). On this record, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion. For example, Nurse Chason testified that it was her practice to incorporate the contents of any incident reports into her regular nursing report. Because her nursing report for the time period in question was available to the Malones, the trial judge could have concluded that the absence of the alleged incident report was not prejudicial to the Malones. Accordingly, it was not reversible error for the trial court to refuse to admit the testimony before the jury.  III.   Finally, the Malones allege that the trial court erred by refusing to strike jurors Grady and DeLay for cause. Before empaneling the jury, the Malones objected to the trial courts failure to excuse jurors Kahle and DeLay for cause; however, upon appeal, the Malones object to the failure to excuse jurors Grady and DeLay for cause. Accordingly, the Malones waived the error, if any, as to juror Grady. With respect to juror DeLay, the Malones argue that DeLays responses during the voir dire examination demonstrate that he should have been excused for cause. Assuming without deciding that the complaint was timely made, the forcause challenge as to DeLay is without merit. If a potential jurors bias or prejudice for or against a party in a lawsuit is established as a matter of law, the trial court must disqualify that person from service. Tex. Govt Code  62.105(4); Swap Shop v. Fortune, 365 S.W.2d 151, 154 (Tex. 1963). If prejudice is not established as a matter of law, the trial court makes a factual determination as to whether the venire member should be disqualified. See Swap Shop, 365 S.W.2d at 154 (noting that the trial court is in [a] better position than an appellate court to evaluate the jurors sincerity and his capacity for fairness and impartiality). When asked generally whether he disagreed with the law on consortium damages and whether he could award these types of damages, DeLay responded vaguely and equivocally. When DeLay was asked specifically whether he could award these particular plaintiffs consortium damages, he stated that he was not sure. Then he was asked whether he could award a set figure for consortium damages. DeLay responded that there might be a limit, but upon followup he said that he was not biased or prejudiced against awarding these types of damages. His answers do not establish bias; in fact, they are consistent with a jurors duty to be bound by the evidence in a particular case in reaching his verdict. There is nothing in this record to suggest that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, there was no error in the trial courts refusal to excuse DeLay for cause. * * * * * As we held in Trevi9o v. Ortega, we decline to recognize a cause of action for evidence spoliation. See ___ S.W.2d at ___. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in excluding Watkinss testimony, that the Malones have waived any error on their complaint that the trial court improperly refused to dismiss juror Grady, and that their complaint regarding juror DeLay is without merit. Accordingly, the court of appeals judgment is affirmed.  ` ` ` hhh____________________________ ` ` ` hhhCraig T. Enoch ` ` ` hhhJustice Opinion delivered: June 5, 1998