author: Justice MOSELEY.

text:
    PINNACLE ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS, P.A., Appellant, v. Dr. Neal FISHER, Appellee.
    No. 05-07-01042-CV.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
    June 25, 2009.
    Rehearing Overruled May 10, 2010.

      P. Michael Jung, Strasburger & Price, L.L.P., Mark A. Stinnett and Michael A. Yanof, Stinnett, Thiebaud & Remington, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
    Martin E. Rose, Rose Walker, L.L.P., Michael D Richardson, Steven Dominic Sanfelippo, F. Leighton Durham, Kirk L. Pittard, Durham & Pittard, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Appellee.
    Before Justices MOSELEY, FITZGERALD, and FRANCIS.
   OPINION

Opinion By

Justice MOSELEY.

Dr. Neal Fisher’s employment agreement with Pinnacle Anesthesia Consultants, P.A. provided that he could be terminated for “cause,” which was defined in the agreement as any of sixteen different reasons. Fisher sued Pinnacle, alleging (among other things): breach of contract based on its termination of the employment agreement without cause; slander; and conversion. The principal dispute between the parties is whether Pinnacle terminated Fisher without cause.

The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Fisher on his breach of contract claim, deciding that he had conclusively negated thirteen of the termination-for-cause grounds stated in the agreement. A jury found in favor of Fisher on the other three termination-for-cause grounds; it also found for Fisher on his slander and conversion claims. The trial court rendered a final judgment in favor of Fisher. Pinnacle appeals, asserting the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment and complaining of certain trial rulings. For the reasons below, we reject Pinnacle’s arguments, resolve its issues against it, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Fisher is a board-certified anesthesiologist. In 1990, he joined Dallas Anesthesia Associates, a group of anesthesiologists that provided obstetric anesthesia services at Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas. In 1999, the successor to Dallas Anesthesia Associates merged with Pinnacle, a group of anesthesiologists practicing in North Texas. Pinnacle continued to provide obstetric anesthesia services to Presbyterian. Fisher signed an employment agreement with Pinnacle and thereby became its employee and a member of its Dallas Division.

A. The Employment Agreement

Pursuant to the agreement, Fisher agreed to provide anesthesiology services exclusively to Pinnacle’s patients on a full-time basis at certain locations. His duties as a physician included performing both anesthesiology services and administrative duties and following Pinnacle’s professional standards of quality and its practice protocols and policies. The agreement provided that it was automatically renewed for one-year terms “unless terminated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.” Section 4.2(a) of the agreement, entitled “Termination For Cause,” provided that, upon an affirmative vote of certain percentages of Pinnacle’s outstanding shareholders and of Pinnacle’s directors in attendance at a meeting at which a quorum was present, Pinnacle could terminate the agreement “immediately for cause.” Section 4.2(a) also contained fourteen subsections, which defined “cause” to mean any of sixteen different reasons. These subsections will be discussed in more detail herein.

The agreement also contained an article (Article VI) entitled “Noncompetition”; section 7.1 of this article states “Left Intentionally Blank.” The remainder of the article does not include a non-competition agreement, and there is no dispute that Fisher was not subject to such an agreement.

B. The Meeting

On January 10, 2004, Fisher was informed that a meeting of Pinnacle’s Dallas Division would be held on January 22. Fisher was told he and his attorney could attend the meeting, but he was not told the meeting’s subject. Some portions of the meeting were “closed door” as to Fisher and his attorney; however, Fisher recorded those portions of the meeting he was permitted to attend, apparently with the knowledge of those participating. A transcript of that recording was submitted as evidence during the summary judgment proceedings and was also admitted into evidence at trial.

Early portions of the meeting, which were recorded and which included all shareholders of the Dallas Division, its attorneys, and Fisher and his attorney, involved allegations of several clinical and administrative incidents concerning Fisher. Fisher defended himself, stating that the incidents had been reviewed by the hospital, were untrue, or were just allegations with no documentation. He stated his belief that he was being targeted for termination by the Dallas Division’s management because he had questioned what he perceived as Pinnacle’s business plan of billing as many procedures as possible out-of-network in order to increase Pinnacle’s profits.

Fisher was asked to agree to submit to Pinnacle’s peer review process, which would have included, among other things, a psychiatric evaluation and a blood test for drugs. Fisher volunteered to take any type of drug test (“a hair sample, urine, blood, everything ... ”), but refused to submit voluntarily to Pinnacle’s peer review process, stating that he believed such a peer review would be a “kangaroo court.”

During a final portion of the meeting (also recorded), Fisher was told he had to agree to five conditions to remain in Pinnacle: (1) submit to Pinnacle’s peer review process for clinical incidents; (2) agree to a two-year probation for administrative matters; (3) sign a three-year non-compete agreement; (4) withdraw from another physician group; and (5) agree to pay Pinnacle’s attorney’s fees and expenses in connection with the January 22 meeting. These were described as “the tickets for him to get back in and really integrate.” Fisher was told that if he chose not to agree to the conditions, he must leave Pinnacle. He was given a deadline of 5:00 p.m. the following day to respond, but Fisher stated immediately that he would not agree to the conditions. (No evidence was admitted at trial or in connection with the earlier partial summary judgment hearing contradicting these statements.)

After the next day’s deadline, Pinnacle wrote Fisher that it was proceeding to terminate him for cause under the agreement. It also withheld fees due to Fisher in order to reimburse itself for its attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the January 22 meeting.

C. The Lawsuit

Fisher sued Pinnacle, alleging breach of contract (for terminating without cause), slander (for statements made about Fisher during and after the meeting), conversion (for withholding fees from Fisher), and other causes of action.

Pertinent to his breach of contract claim, Fisher contended that: (1) the employment agreement overcame the presumption that he was an at-will employee; (2) he could only be terminated for “cause” as defined in the agreement; (3) nothing in the agreement required him to accept any of Pinnacle’s five demands for continuing his employment; and thus (4) Pinnacle breached the agreement by constructively terminating him without cause at the meeting. There appears to be no dispute as to Fisher’s first two contentions; however, Pinnacle disputed the latter two contentions. Specifically, Pinnacle claimed that Fisher’s actions before and during the meeting constituted “cause” to terminate him under the agreement, and that it thereafter terminated Fisher for cause pursuant to the agreement after Fisher refused Pinnacle’s demands.

The trial court granted Fisher’s traditional motion for partial summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The exact text of the trial court’s order will be reviewed in more detail herein, but by way of summary the trial court held that Fisher proved as a matter of law he was not terminated for cause based on any of the “for cause” provisions in the agreement, save three. Those three provisions, set forth in subsection (iv)[l] and subsection (viii)[l] and [2], defined “cause” as:

(iv) Physician’s [1] failure to perform the duties required hereunder ...;
(viii) Physician’s engaging in behavior or activities which [1] result in damage to the Association’s reputation and/or [2] disrupt, undermine or threaten to disrupt or undermine the operations or cohesiveness of the Association or the Physician’s Division....

(Brackets added.) The trial court also granted Pinnacle’s motion for summary judgment on all of Fisher’s causes of action against it except breach of contract, conversion, and slander.

The case then proceeded to jury trial. As to Fisher’s breach of contract claim, the jury found that Pinnacle did not terminate Fisher for cause under the three remaining “for cause” grounds under the contract. The jury also found Fisher did not repudiate the employment agreement. Based on these answers, the jury awarded Fisher damages of $900,000 in past lost earnings and $5 million in future lost earnings on his breach of contract claim. The jury also found in Fisher’s favor on his claims for conversion and slander and awarded damages of $36,000 and $200,000 (respectively) for these claims.

Based on the jury’s findings, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of Fisher and against Pinnacle in the amount of $8,597,508.27, including attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest. Pinnacle appealed, asserting three issues. None of these issues relate to the computation of the damage amounts.

II. BREACH OF CONTRACT

A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform an act that it has expressly or impliedly promised to perform. Case Corp. v. Hi-Class Bus. Sys. of Am., Inc., 184 S.W.3d 760, 769, 770 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied). A defendant’s improper termination of a contract is a breach of the contract as a matter of law. Gunter Hotel of San Antonio Inc. v. Buck, 775 S.W.2d 689, 697 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1989, writ denied); Incorporated Carriers, Ltd. v. Crocker, 639 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1982, no writ); Howell v. Kelly, 534 S.W.2d 737, 740 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1976, no writ). When an employment agreement requires cause to terminate an employee, the burden of proof for establishing cause rests upon the employer. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Fletcher, 915 S.W.2d 538, 543 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied).

As described above, the trial court granted partial summary judgment for Fisher, concluding as a matter of law that Pinnacle did not have cause to terminate Fisher based on thirteen of the sixteen “for cause” grounds set forth in the contract. The jury also held in favor of Fisher, finding as a matter of fact that Pinnacle did not terminate Fisher for cause based on the remaining three “for cause” grounds. The trial court’s partial summary judgment as to the thirteen “for cause” grounds, and the manner in which the court tried the three remaining “for cause” grounds, give rise (respectively) to Pinnacle’s first and second issues on appeal.

A. Partial Summary Judgment

In its first issue, Pinnacle contends the trial court erred in granting partial sum-maiy judgment.

1.Burden of Proof

A party seeking to recover upon a claim may move for summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(a). When the plaintiff moves for summary judgment on a claim for relief, he must affirmatively demonstrate by summary judgment evidence that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning each element of his claim, including the existence of damages or loss. See Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Tex.1999); Green v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 883 S.W.2d 293, 297 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no writ). See also Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(a) (summary judgment may be rendered on issue of liability alone, although there is genuine issue as to amount of damages). The plaintiff meets this burden if he produces evidence that would be sufficient to support an instructed verdict at trial. See Ortega-Carter v. Am. Int’l Adjustment Co., 834 S.W.2d 439, 441 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ denied).

Once the movant with the burden of proof has established the right to summary judgment on the issues presented, the non-movant’s response should present to the trial court a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. See Abdel-Fattah v. Pepsico, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ). If a case is not fully adjudicated on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court is authorized to render partial summary judgment, making “an order specifying the facts that are established as a matter of law, and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just.” See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(e).

2. Standard of Review

We review a traditional summary judgment de novo. Roehrs v. FSI Holdings, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 796, 805 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied). We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and resolve all doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex.2005). Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer, or other response shall not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 677 (Tex.1979).

3. Analysis

Pinnacle makes several arguments under its first issue. It argues: (a) Fisher’s motion did not address each of the “for cause” grounds for termination set forth in the agreement; (b) the text of the trial court’s order shows that the trial court erred because it treated Fisher’s traditional motion for partial summary judgment as a “no evidence” motion attacking each ground for termination “for cause” under the agreement; (c) because the trial court ruled against Fisher with respect to several of the “for cause” grounds for termination, it should have denied Fisher’s motion in its entirety and thus it erred in “ruling on specific grounds piecemeal”; and (d) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Pinnacle raised a fact issue regarding termination for cause on several grounds.

(a) Scope of Fisher’s Motion

Pinnacle argues that Fisher’s motion did not address each of the “for cause” grounds for termination set forth in the agreement. We disagree. In his motion, Fisher asserted that the fourteen subsections set out “separate actions that would constitute ‘cause’ for terminating” and asserted that “[n]one of the grounds could be relied upon to terminate [him] under the agreement....” He asserted that, under the terms of the employment agreement, his refusal to submit to Pinnacle’s five conditions was not “cause” for termination. He asserted that eight of the “for cause” grounds “were not even alleged” by Pinnacle against him. He argued that the remaining grounds could not be triggered by mere allegations, and they all required that he be found to have committed some act that would trigger termination for cause. As evidence, Fisher’s motion relied, in part, on: the transcription of the recording of the January 22 meeting; a copy of the agreement, containing all fourteen subsections stating all sixteen grounds for termination for cause; and an affidavit of Fisher stating that he made an audio recording of the January 22 meeting, it truly and accurately recorded the events at the meeting, and the transcription attached to the motion as Exhibit A was a “true and accurate transcript of the audio recording.” We thus conclude Fisher’s motion addressed all sixteen bases for termination “for cause” under the agreement.

(b) Nature of Fisher’s Motion and Trial Court’s Order

Pinnacle also argues that the text of the trial court’s order shows it treated Fisher’s traditional motion for partial summary judgment as a “no evidence” motion attacking each ground for termination “for cause” under the agreement, and thus erred by in effect requiring Pinnacle to marshal its proof of cause for each of the contractual grounds for termination. The basis for Pinnacle’s argument is the trial court’s use of the phrase “no evidence” in the second and third numbered paragraphs of the order, which we quote below. The order states that the trial court is granting the motion in part and denying it in part “as follows:”

1.[Fisher’s] motion for summary judgment that [Pinnacle] breached the [employment agreement] is GRANTED IN PART in so far that there is conclusive summary judgment evidence establishing a prima facie case of breach by [Pinnacle] subject to the rulings in paragraphs 2-5 below.
2. [Fisher’s] motion for summary judgment that there is no evidence that [Fisher] breached Section 4.2(a)(xii) or was terminated for cause pursuant to Section 4.2(a)(xii) of the [employment agreement] is GRANTED and the Court also finds as a matter of law there was no recommendation made pursuant to this provision of the Agreement to terminate [Fisher’s] employment pursuant to Section 4.2(a)(xii).
3. [Fisher’s] motion for summary judgment that there is no evidence that [Fisher] breached Section 4.2(a)(iv) of the [employment agreement] that reads physician’s “failure or refusal to comply with the policies, standards and regulations of the Association with from time to time may be established, as determined in the Board of Directors’ sole discretion” and there is no evidence that [Fisher] was terminated for cause pursuant to Section 4.2(a)(iv) of the [employment agreement] that reads physician’s “failure or refusal to comply with the policies, standards and regulations of the Association with from time to time may be established, as determined in the Board of Directors’ sole discretion” is GRANTED.
4. [Fisher’s] motion for summary judgment that Fisher did not breach Section 4.2(a)(iv) of the [employment agreement] for the “failure to perform the duties required hereunder” and was not terminated for cause pursuant to Section 4.2(a)(iv) of the [employment agreement] that reads physician’s “failure to perform the duties required hereunder” is DENIED.
5. [Fisher’s] motion for summary judgment that [Fisher] did not breach Section 4.2(a)(viii) and was not terminated for cause pursuant to Section 4.2(a)(viii) is DENIED.
All other relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED....

(Emphasis added in italics.)

We agree Fisher’s motion for partial summary judgment was a traditional motion as to Pinnacle’s liability for breach of the agreement; thus, Fisher had the burden of proving he was entitled to summary judgment with respect to each of the “for cause” grounds for termination set forth in the agreement.

Although the language of the trial court’s order is not a model of clarity, we conclude that paragraph 1 of the order, by granting Fisher’s motion “subject to the rulings in paragraphs 2-5 below,” is effective to grant Fisher a traditional summary judgment negating all sixteen grounds for termination for cause, “subject to” the additional specified rulings. Two of those rulings, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order, deny Fisher summary judgment as to three of the termination-for-cause grounds (namely, subsections (iv)[l] and (viii)[l] and [2]); thus, they necessarily contravene paragraph 1 and are effective to exclude from paragraph l’s grant of traditional summary judgment the issues of whether Fisher was terminated pursuant to those subsections.

That brings us to the meaning of paragraphs 2 and 3, which purport to grant a “no evidence” summary judgment with respect to the “for cause” grounds set forth in subsections (xii) and (iv)[2] (respectively). Unlike paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order, however, the holdings in paragraphs 2 and 3 do not contravene paragraph l’s grant of traditional summary judgment; i.e., they do not remove issues relating to termination under subsections (xii) and (iv)[2] from the scope of the traditional summary judgment granted in paragraph 1. As worded by the trial court, paragraphs 2 and 3 constitute additional— albeit erroneous — “no evidence” summary judgment rulings as to whether Fisher was terminated pursuant to subsections (xii) and (iv)[2]> Unless the trial court erred in granting a traditional summary judgment on those subsections in paragraph 1 of the order, we cannot conclude that the additional holdings in paragraphs 2 and 3 resulted in the entry of an improper judgment. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.1(a) (error is reversible if it probably caused rendition of improper judgment or probably prevented appellant from properly presenting case to court of appeals).

In addition, Pinnacle argues the trial court’s order “creates ambiguity” as to which grounds for cause the order covers. Fisher disagrees, arguing among other things that Pinnacle waived this complaint by approving the order as to form. Assuming without deciding that Pinnacle has not waived this complaint, we still disagree. As noted above, paragraph 1 effectively granted Fisher a traditional summary judgment negating the all “for cause” grounds for termination, subject to the rulings in paragraphs 2 through 5. Paragraphs 4 and 5 negate and limit that traditional summary judgment to exclude the issues of whether Fisher was terminated for cause pursuant to subsections (iv)[l] and (viii)[l] and [2], and those issues were thereafter tried to a jury. Further, although paragraphs 2 and 3 erroneously reference a no-evidence motion, they do not negate or limit the effect of paragraph 1. We conclude no ambiguity exists such as would require reversal.

(c) “Piecemeal” Nature of Rulings

Pinnacle argues that, because the trial court found a fact issue existed as to whether Pinnacle terminated Fisher for cause based on three of the sixteen grounds for termination set forth in the agreement (subsections (iv)[l] and (viii)[l] and [2]), the trial court should have denied Fisher’s motion in toto, and thus it erred in “ruling on specific grounds piecemeal.” Again, Fisher replies that Pinnacle waived this complaint by approving the order as to form.

Assuming Pinnacle did not waive this complaint, we conclude rule of civil procedure 166a(e) is dispositive — it permits partial summary judgment, directing the trial court to make “an order specifying the facts that are established as a matter of law, and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just.” See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(e). Thus, we conclude the trial court did not err by granting partial summary judgment on some of the grounds for termination, reserving others for trial.

(d) Issue of Fact as to Other “For Cause” Grounds

As noted above, Fisher’s summary judgment motion asserted that he was not terminated “for cause” as defined in the employment agreement. He asserted that nothing in the agreement required him to accept any of the conditions for continued employment presented to him at the January 22 meeting, and his refusal to accept those conditions did not fit within any of the enumerated termination-for-cause grounds. In its response, Pinnacle contended that Fisher’s failure to agree to undergo Pinnacle’s peer review process justified his termination under subsection (iv)[l] and [2], subsection (viii)[l] and [2], and subsection (xii). The trial court granted partial summary judgment, finding that Fisher proved as a matter of law he was not terminated for cause under any of the provisions of the agreement except for three (subsection (iv)[l] and subsection (viii)[l] and [2]), which were later tried by a jury. On appeal, Pinnacle asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment disposing of the issue of termination because it raised a fact issue under six for-cause provisions.

First, we consider Pinnacle’s assertion that it raised a fact issue as to Fisher’s termination under subsection (iv)[2] — permitting termination for “failure or refusal to comply with the policies, standards and regulations of the Association which from time to time may be established, as determined in the Board of Directors’ sole discretion” — and, therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment disposing of the issue of termination under that subsection. In support of this assertion, Pinnacle makes several arguments.

Pinnacle argues Fisher’s refusal to agree to undergo peer review constituted evidence of a violation of Pinnacle’s policies, standards, or regulations. However, no provision of the employment agreement requires a Pinnacle physician to agree to submit to Pinnacle’s peer review process upon request. Neither did Pinnacle point to evidence that Pinnacle’s directors had established a policy, standard, or regulation imposing such a requirement. Further, there was evidence that a peer review referral could be made without a physician’s agreement. Specifically, Hank Duffy, Pinnacle’s manager who began the January 22 meeting, stated there that:

The Dallas physician shareholders are being asked to refer to the Pinnacle quality improvement in Peer Review Committee certain allegations made regarding Dr. Fisher’s clinical practice. Should the Dallas Division shareholders believe that there is reason to be concerned about any clinical practice, there is a professional obligation to address the behavior from the peer review process. It is the shareholder’s primary obligation.... It is the question of [sic] is there a sense among the shareholders that the allegations are sufficient that they be sent to the peer review process because it is protected....

Later, Duffy read specific allegations regarding clinical practices and stated:

Those are the six clinical allegations and they fall into uh, what we’re calling the Peer Review group. If your colleagues hypothetically believe that those allegations probably aren’t true, but there are enough of them that they should be cautious, we are telling them that they should refer this to the peer review process to protect everybody including yourself.

In a deposition, Fisher stated he heard one of the Pinnacle doctors “was going around soliciting votes from the doctors to put me in peer review....” Accordingly, we reject Pinnacle’s argument that Fisher’s refusal to agree to undergo peer review constituted evidence of a violation of Pinnacle’s policies, standards, or regulations.

Pinnacle also directs our attention to its “Quality Management Policies and Procedures” which concern “Handling Suspected Impaired Practitioners.” This document provides that a suspected impaired physician should be reported to the chairperson of Pinnacle’s Quality Improvement Committee, who then names a Physician Health Committee to investigate the report and make a recommendation as to disciplinary action to the Board of Directors. This document was attached as an exhibit to Fisher’s reply to Pinnacles’s response. However, in its response, Pinnacle did not bring this document to the trial court’s attention, although it pointed to an allegation of “using alcohol while on Obstetrics service.” But Pinnacle made no argument that Fisher was an impaired physician or that anyone had invoked the procedures provided by the “Quality Management Policies and Procedures” with respect to Fisher, or that Fisher violated the terms of those policies, standards, or requirements by refusing to agree to submit to peer review. Because this argument was not made in Pinnacle’s response as an issue expressly precluding summary judgment, Pinnacle cannot raise it on appeal as a reason to reverse the summary judgment. See City of Houston, 589 S.W.2d at 677.

Pinnacle also argues at least one Dallas Division doctor had been required to undergo peer review and this was some evidence of an informal policy requiring Pinnacle physicians to submit to peer review upon request. However, this argument was not made in Pinnacle’s response as an issue expressly precluding summary judgment. Thus, Pinnacle cannot raise it on appeal as a reason to reverse the summary judgment. See id.

Pinnacle also makes the following argument:

The question before the court on summary judgment was not whether Fisher’s noncompliance with Pinnacle’s policies, standards, or regulations had been established, or even whether there was a fact issue concerning whether it had been established, but whether there was a fact issue that it could have been established in the sole discretion of the Pinnacle board, which had not yet acted at the time of the January 22, 2004, meeting.

This argument presents nothing new, absent some evidence that, on January 22, 2004, Pinnacle had an existing policy, standard, or regulation requiring Pinnacle physicians to submit voluntarily to peer review. And there is no such evidence here.

Pinnacle also argues that, apart from Fisher’s refusal to submit to peer review, many of the administrative allegations related specifically to Fisher’s failure to comply with Pinnacle’s policies, procedures, and directives, such as being on time for cases and filling out charts. In the factual background of its response to Fisher’s motion for summary judgment, Pinnacle outlined administrative complaints regarding Fisher’s failure to adhere to its policies, procedures, and directives. However, Pinnacle made no argument in its response that Fisher was terminated for failing to comply with policies, procedures, and directives governing these administrative allegations. Because this argument was not made in Pinnacle’s response as an issue expressly precluding summary judgment, Pinnacle cannot raise it on appeal as a reason to reverse the summary judgment. See id.

Next, Pinnacle asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment disposing of the issue of termination under subsection (viii)[l] and [2] — -permitting termination for “engaging in behavior or activities which [1] result in damage to the Association’s reputation and/or [2] disrupt, undermine or threaten to disrupt or undermine the operations or cohesiveness of the Association or the Physician’s Division”— because it raised a fact issue regarding termination for cause under these subsections. But the trial court denied Fisher’s motion for summary judgment on subsection (viii)[l] and [2], as noted above. We need not address these specific arguments in the context of summary judgment because the denial of Fisher’s motion for summary judgment for cause under subsection (viii)[l] and [2] did not result in reversible error. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.1. See also Reese v. Duncan, 80 S.W.3d 650, 665 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. denied) (“If the trial court denies a motion for summary judgment and the case is tried on its merits, the order denying the summary judgment is not reviewable on appeal.”).

We reach the same conclusion as to Pinnacle’s argument that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment disposing of the issue of termination under subsection (iv)[l], which permits termination for a physician’s “failure to perform the duties required” under the employment agreement, because it raised a fact issue regarding termination for cause under this subsection. The trial court denied Fisher’s motion for summary judgment on subsection (iv)[l], as noted above. We need not address this specific argument in the context of summary judgment because the denial of Fisher’s motion for summary judgment for cause under subsection (iv)[l] did not result in reversible error. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.1. See also Reese, 80 S.W.3d at 665.

Lastly, we consider Pinnacle’s argument that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment disposing of the issue of termination because evidence of Fisher’s derogatory statements made to outsiders raised a fact issue of termination for cause under section (ix), which provides for termination-for-cause for a physician’s “breach of any material fiduciary duty to the Association.” This argument was not made in Pinnacle’s response to the motion for summary judgment as an issue expressly precluding summary judgment. Thus, Pinnacle cannot raise it on appeal as reasons to reverse the summary judgment. See City of Houston, 589 S.W.2d at 677.

We reach the same conclusion regarding Pinnacle’s argument that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment disposing of the issue of termination because it raised an issue of fact pursuant to subsection (vii), which provides termination-for-cause when a physician “materially breaches” the employment agreement. Pinnacle argues specifically that Fisher breached section 2.1(c), (d), and (f) of the employment agreement, which required Fisher to promote Pinnacle’s professional practice, attend to Pinnacle’s administrative duties, and follow professional standards of quality. However, this argument was not made in Pinnacle’s response to the motion for summary judgment as an issue expressly precluding summary judgment. Thus, Pinnacle cannot raise it on appeal as reasons to reverse the summary judgment. See id.

Having rejected Pinnacle’s arguments directed to the propriety of the summary judgment, we resolve Pinnacle’s first issue against it.

B. Jury Trial

The jury was asked to consider three grounds for termination for cause: Fisher’s failure to perform the duties required under the employment agreement (subsection (iv)[l]), or his engaging in behavior or activities which resulted in damage to Pinnacle’ reputation (subsection (viii)[l]) or disrupted, undermined, or threatened to disrupt or undermine Pinnacle’s or the Dallas Division’s operation or cohesiveness (subsection (viii)[2]). The jury found against Pinnacle. In its second issue, Pinnacle argues the trial court erred at trial by “precluding in its entirety Pinnacle’s defense that Fisher’s refusal to submit to peer review constituted cause for termination under the grounds submitted to the jury.” Pinnacle asserts the trial court erred by: (1) limiting its proof and argument on this issue; (2) granting motion for directed verdict for Fisher on this point; and (3) instructing the jury that, as a matter of law, Fisher’s “mere failure to voluntarily submit to [Pinnaclej’s peer review process is not ‘Cause’ under the terms of their Employment Agreement.”

1. Limiting Proof

We review a trial court’s eviden-tiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887, 906 (Tex.2000). Unless the trial court’s erroneous evidentiary ruling probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment, we will not reverse the ruling. Id.

After the jury returned its verdict, Pinnacle argued that it “was prohibited at trial from introducing evidence and arguing to the jury that Fisher’s failure to submit to Pinnacle’s peer review process was a basis for his termination and/or constituted termination for cause.” Pinnacle argued that Fisher agreed Pinnacle could offer this evidence “later,” and Fisher did not object. Pinnacle then described the testimony of six witnesses as an offer of proof. However, it was undisputed that Fisher was not terminated solely because he refused to submit to Pinnacle’s peer review. First, Dr. Michael Hicks, Pinnacle’s president, was asked, “Was Dr. Fisher terminated solely because of a refusal or statement that he would not participate in peer review?” Hicks replied, “No, not at all.” Dr. Alan Frankfurt, a Pinnacle shareholder who attended the January 22 meeting, was asked, “Did you terminate Neal Fisher’s employment from Pinnacle solely because he refused to go to peer review?” Frankfurt replied, “No. He had to abide by the other parameters as well.” None of the testimony in the offer of proof related to the actual reason Fisher was terminated, only that he could have been terminated for such failure. Because such testimony was irrelevant to the issue of termination for cause, any error in excluding this testimony did not result in reversible error. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.1; Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 34 S.W.3d at 906.

2. Directing a Verdict

A directed verdict is proper under rule of civil procedure 268, in part, when the evidence conclusively proves a fact that establishes a party’s right to judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R. Civ. P. 268. See Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227, 233 (Tex.2004). In reviewing the granting of a directed verdict, we must determine if there is more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on the material question presented. See Coastal Transp. Co., 136 S.W.3d at 233. We consider all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was instructed and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences; we give the losing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences created by the evidence. Id. at 234. If the evidence supporting a finding on the issue “rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions,” it constitutes more than a scintilla of evidence and the case must be reversed and remanded for a jury determination. See id. (citation omitted).

We consider Pinnacle’s arguments in light of the trial court’s directed verdict on the issue that the failure to agree to submit voluntarily to peer review was not just cause for termination.

Section 1.1 of the employment agreement defines “Anesthesiology Services” required of Pinnacle physicians as “the services of a specialist in the practice of anesthesiology” and lists six specific services clearly related to delivering medical care to patients. Following that list, the employment agreement states, “Physician shall render Anesthesiology Services in accordance with the Association’s policies and procedures and shall perform any other semces that are assigned or requested from time to time by the Association and the Physician’s Division.” (Emphasis added.) Referring to subsection (iv)[l], Pinnacle argues on appeal that submission to peer review comes within the “non-anesthesiological services” referred to in the italicized language and that “the refusal [to submit to peer review] could have been construed by a reasonable juror as a failure by Fisher to perform the duties required of him under the Agreement.” However, even if this were true, the evidence was undisputed that Fisher was not fired solely because he refused to submit to peer review — he was fired for refusing to submit to all five conditions.

Pinnacle’s arguments as to subsection (viii)[l] and [2] rest on speculation as to Fisher’s motive for such refusal, the possible reaction of other doctors to such refusal, and the possible future “effect” of such refusal, including “whether it was safe to schedule Fisher for anesthesiological procedures.” Pinnacle argues, “These lingering questions could not help but disrupt and undermine operations and cohesiveness.” There was no evidence presented as to whether such “lingering questions” had any factual basis. The only record references in Pinnacle’s brief are to the fact of Fisher’s refusal at the meeting. Such speculation and surmise do not constitute more than a scintilla of evidence. See Coastal Transp. Co., 136 S.W.3d at 233-34. Because there is no evidence raising a fact issue on the question of whether Fisher’s failure to agree to submit voluntarily to peer review was just cause for termination under subsections (iv)[l] or (viii)[l] and [2], we conclude the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict on this issue. See id.

Having rejected Pinnacle’s arguments, we conclude the trial court did not err in directing a verdict on the issue that the failure to agree to submit voluntarily to peer review was not just cause for termination. See id.

3.Instructing the Jury

The trial court is required to “submit such instructions and definitions as shall be proper to enable the jury to render a verdict.” Sterling Trust Co. v. Adderley, 168 S.W.3d 835, 842-43 (Tex.2005) (quoting Tex.R. Civ. P. 277). We review the trial courts submission of instructions and jury questions under an abuse of discretion standard. Barnett v. Coppell N. Tex. Court, Ltd., 123 S.W.3d 804, 824 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied). To determine whether an alleged error in the jury charge is reversible, we must consider the pleadings of the parties, the evidence presented at trial, and the charge in its entirety. Id.

At the charge conference, although Pinnacle initially objected to submission of the instruction, it then agreed to include “mere” in the instruction. By such agreement Pinnacle abandoned its objection and waived its argument on appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a). Even if Pinnacle had not abandoned this objection, as noted above, two Pinnacle witnesses testified that Fisher was not terminated solely because he refused to participate in peer review. Because the instruction enabled the jury to render a verdict, we discern no abuse of discretion in the submission of this jury instruction. See Sterling Trust Co., 168 S.W.3d at 842-43; Barnett, 123 S.W.3d at 824.

4.Conclusion

Having rejected Pinnacle’s arguments as to the trial rulings, we resolve Pinnacle’s second issue against it.

III. CONVERSION

In its third issue, Pinnacle contends Fisher had no conversion claim because that claim was based on Pinnacle’s deducting its attorney’s fees from his final salary payment, but such money was not “a specific tangible asset” required to prove a tort for conversion of money. The record shows that Pinnacle’s only objection to the originally proposed submission of Question 4 was the inclusion of the word “wrongfully” in the question. In response to Pinnacle’s objection, the trial court deleted the word “wrongfully,” thus effectively sustaining Pinnacle’s sole objection. Pinnacle had no other objection to Question 4, which asked the jury, “Did [Pinnacle] convert Neal Fisher’s property?” and listed the elements of a conversion claim. We conclude Pinnacle’s argument on appeal was not made in the trial court. See Tex. R.App. P. 33.1.

In addition, in closing argument, Pinnacle’s counsel said,

I’m going to tell you, we are not going to fuss about [the conversion award]. If you think Dr. Fisher deserves that money write “Yes” in there and we’ll write that cheek before they get out of the courtroom.... You decide. That’s not a biggie. If you think he deserves that, give it to him.

Based on Pinnacle’s lack of further objection before the trial court and its argument before the jury, we conclude Pinnacle did not preserve for review its conversion argument. See Pirtle v. Gregory, 629 S.W.2d 919, 920 (Tex.1982) (per curiam) (“The reason for the requirement that a litigant preserve a trial predicate for complaint on appeal is that one should not be permitted to waive, consent to, or neglect to complain about an error at trial and then surprise his opponent on appeal by stating his complaint for the first time.”). We resolve Pinnacle’s third issue against it.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having resolved Pinnacle’s three issues against it, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

      . Unless specified, ail references to “subsections” refer to subsections of section 4.2(a). These subsections defining "cause” are numbered (i) through (xiv); the agreement refers to them as "subsections,” as do we. However, our discussion acknowledges that subsections (iv) and (viii) each contains two separate grounds for termination. For clarity, our discussion of subsections (iv) and (viii) include bracketed numbers delineating the two separate grounds for termination set forth in each of those subsections.

      . See supra note 1.

      . Because of the nature of Pinnacle's complaints on appeal, we need not recount in detail the evidence relating to Pinnacle’s liability (except with respect to whether it terminated Fisher without cause) or the evidence relating to Fisher's damages.

      . Specifically, the jury answered ‘‘no” to the following question:
      Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [Pinnacle] terminated [Fisher] for "Cause” under the terms of their Employment Agreement?
      "Cause” under the terms of their employment contract means:
      a.) A failure to perform the duties required under the Employment Agreement and/or
      b.) Engaging in behavior or activities which resulted in damage to [Pinnacle’s] reputation and/or disrupted, undermined or threatened to disrupt or undermine the operations or cohesiveness of [Pinnacle] or the Dallas Division of [Pinnacle].
      You are instructed that, as a matter of law, [Fisher's] mere failure to voluntarily submit to [Pinnacle's] peer review process is not "Cause” under the terms of the Employment Agreement.

      . The only subsection not expressly referenced by number in the motion is subsection (x), which defined "cause” to include the physician's "engaging in fraud or embezzlement.” See infra note 6. However, this subsection was encompassed within both of the two categories discussed above: it was not alleged by Pinnacle, and it required Fisher be found to have committed (not just accused of committing) some act of fraud or embezzlement. Thus, we conclude Fisher’s motion also addressed and encompassed termination under subsection (x).

      . The subsections specifying cause for termination are quoted below:
      (i) The suspension, revocation, surrender, or cancellation of Physician’s right to practice medicine in Texas or to prescribe controlled substances;
      (ii) Absent a prior agreement between the parties, the revocation, reduction or surrender of Physician’s membership on the medical staff of any location listed on Exhibit A or any adverse action taken against Physician's clinical privileges at any such location or the failure of Physician to attain the necessary clinical privileges to provide Anesthesiology Services at any such location within a reasonable time of applying for such clinical privileges;
      (iii) The imposition of any restrictions or limitations by any governmental authority having jurisdiction over Physician to such an extent that he cannot engage in the professional practice on the basis for which he was employed;
      (iv) Physician's [1] failure to perform the duties required hereunder or [2] failure or refusal to comply with the policies, standards and regulations of the Association which from time to time may be established, as determined in the Board of Directors’ sole discretion;
      (v) Physician is found guilty of unprofessional or unethical conduct by any board, institution, organization or professional society having any privilege or right to pass on the conduct of Physician;
      (vi) Physician’s conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction of any felony offense or any misdemeanor offense involving moral turpitude;
      (vii) Physician materially breaches this Agreement;
      (viii) Physician’s engaging in behavior or activities which [1] result in damage to the Association's reputation and/or [2] disrupt, undermine or threaten to disrupt or undermine the operations or cohesiveness of the Association or the Physician's Division;
      (ix) Physician's breach of any material fiduciary duty to the Association;
      (x) Physician's engaging in fraud or embezzlement;

        (xi) Physician's loss of malpractice insurance as a result of any action or inaction of Physician which cannot be timely replaced through diligent efforts;
      (xii) A recommendation by the Quality Assurance and Peer Review Committee (or the Board of Directors, if such committee has not been created) to terminate Physician’s employment with the Association is made after an investigation regarding the quality of patient care rendered by Physician is concluded;
      (xiii) Physician’s employment status with the Association is modified by the Board of Directors of the Association and Physician does not, if required by the Board of Directors, transfer to Association the required portion of his shares in accordance with the Buy-Sell Agreement; or
      (xiv) Physician's failure to pay his pro-rata portion of indemnification amounts to any proper indemnitee pursuant to Article XIV of that certain Asset Exchange Agreement and Plan of Reorganization between the Association, DFW Anesthesia Associates, P.A. ("DFW’’) and North Texas Anesthesia Consultants, P.A. (''NTAC'').
      (Brackets added.)

      . Moreover, we decline to hold that, in the context of section 1.1 of the employment agreement, the provision requiring Fisher to provide “any other services” could reasonably be construed to include agreeing to submit to peer review.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JANE BLAND, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Andreas Peter STARZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    Nos. 01-07-01074-CR to 01-07-01079-CR.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).
    Sept. 30, 2009.
    Discretionary Review Refused March 3, 2010.

      Kimbra Kathryn Ogg, Houston, TX, for Appellant.
    Alan Curry, Assistant District Attorney, Houston, TX, for Appellee.
    Panel consists of Justices BLAND, SHARP, and TAFT.

       Justice Tim Taft, who retired from the First Court of Appeals on June 1, 2009, continues to sit by assignment for the disposition of this case, which was submitted on February 10, 2009.

   OPINION

JANE BLAND, Justice.

The State charged Andreas Starz with committing two separate felony offenses of aggravated sexual assault, three separate felony offenses of sexual assault of a child, and one felony offense of engaging in an improper relationship with his student. Starz pleaded guilty to all six offenses after agreeing to a plea bargain with the State. As recommended by the State, the trial court assessed punishment at six years’ confinement for each of the six offenses, to run concurrently. Starz moved for a new trial, alleging that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance in connection with Starz’s guilty plea. After a five-day hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Starz appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his ineffective assistance claim, and that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to admit evidence at the motion for new trial hearing. After reviewing all of the evidence the trial court heard, we affirm.

Background

In August 2006, two girls, P.M. and K.M., each fourteen at the time of her outcry, alleged that their seventh-grade history teacher, Andreas Starz, sexually assaulted them in May 2006. Police interviewed both girls at the Children’s Assessment Center in Houston. P.M. stated that Starz took her to his girlfriend’s apartment on May 29, 2006, Memorial Day, and had sexual intercourse with her on both the couch and the bed. Starz claimed to have asked P.M. to babysit his son that morning while he participated in a group bicycle ride, but instead, he took his son to his ex-wife’s house, and P.M. did not need to babysit. K.M. stated that Starz assaulted her by touching her vagina while watching a video during class. K.M. also alleged that in two other separate incidents, Starz made K.M. perform oral sex on him and they engaged in sexual intercourse while at KM.’s apartment.

The State charged Starz with six offenses: two felony offenses of aggravated sexual assault, three felony offenses of sexual assault of a child, and one felony offense of engaging in an improper relationship with a student. After his arrest, Starz’s family hired L.T. Bradt to defend him. Bradt met with Starz in jail and described his credentials. Starz testified that Bradt spent most of their first hour-long meeting talking about himself and his legal experience. He expressed confidence that Starz could win his case, and Starz’s parents testified that Bradt told them Starz had a ninety percent chance of winning his case. They also testified that Bradt told them he cracked the case of misconduct in the Harris County crime lab. In contrast, Bradt testified that he told Starz that he had represented sexual assault defendants in the past, both successfully and unsuccessfully, and that he believed Starz had a good chance of winning, but did not express that chance in terms of a percentage. He testified that he mentioned his role in the crime lab case to explain that he had a controversial relationship with the Harris County District Attorney’s office, which might limit his ability to negotiate a favorable plea bargain. In fact, Bradt told the Starzes that if they wanted a plea bargain, he might not be the best lawyer to handle Starz’s case because of this unfavorable relationship.

Starz’s parents paid Bradt’s $100,000 fee in two installments of $50,000 each. Bradt indicated at the beginning of the representation that he believed Starz was not guilty and would win his case. Bradt’s contract for representation, however, states that he does not guarantee any outcome or the success of the defense.

In addition to the $100,000 fee, Bradt required that the Starzes pay the cost of engaging private investigators and certain experts that he alleged would be necessary to Starz’s defense. Bradt engaged Kim Hart, the director of the National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center, as a trial consultant; Starz’s parents paid her $30,000. Bradt testified that Hart helped put him in touch with experts, reviewed transcripts of P.M. and K.M.’s statements, reviewed telephone records, and participated in discussions with one of the expert witnesses. Bradt, with Hart’s help, engaged Dr. Stephen Guertin to review P.M. and KM.’s medical records; review of the records showed that there was no clear evidence of trauma, which frequently occurs in cases where the victim’s outcry is delayed. Bradt also testified that he consulted with Dr. Philip Esplín, who he hoped could testify as to P.M. and KM.’s mental states and the psychological dynamics of their age group. After speaking with Dr. Esplín and reviewing P.M. and KM.’s statements, Bradt testified that he determined Esplín would not be a helpful witness but instead might harm Starz’s case. Starz testified that sometime before the second trial setting, he asked Bradt about the cost of having experts appear for trial. Bradt told him that with fees and paying the experts’ expenses, it could cost as much as $60,000.

At the early stages of trial preparation, the State did not order any DNA tests because both P.M. and K.M. had made delayed outcries. Shortly before the second trial setting, however, the State ordered DNA testing on items from the apartment where P.M. was assaulted. Starz and Bradt were made aware of the testing. The DNA results had not returned when Starz pleaded guilty. The results later linked P.M. to the materials tested from Starz’s girlfriend’s apartment.

Bradt hired J.J. Gradoni and Carey Wellmaker to serve as private investigators for the case. Bradt testified that he tries to avoid directly talking to witnesses and instead Bradt hires investigators to do so. In this case, Bradt requested that Gradoni and Wellmaker attempt to contact the witnesses whom Starz identified as potentially helpful. During one meeting with Starz, Bradt brought a school yearbook and had Starz go through the pages and identify potential witnesses. Starz contends he suggested a list of approximately sixty-six witnesses whom he believed would be helpful. Since KM. alleged that one of her assaults occurred during class, many of the witnesses on this list were other students present in Starz’s classroom at the time of the assault. Starz also identified other teachers, whom he claimed could verify difficulties that he had with P.M. and K.M. in the past, and friends of P.M. and KM. who could verify that they used drugs and engaged in promiscuous behavior. Bradt subpoenaed the school in order to obtain contact information for many of the students in Starz’s class. Gradoni and Wellmaker spoke to approximately five students, some of whom were in Starz’s class, and others who knew P.M. and KM. Bradt testified that Grado-ni and Wellmaker had trouble finding some students because their contact information was incorrect, and they were unable to speak to other students because their parents refused to consent. All of the students with whom Gradoni and Well-maker spoke, however, said that they did not observe Starz sexually assaulting KM. during class. Some of the students also stated negative impressions of P.M.’s character. Bradt testified that neither he nor his investigators interviewed P.M. and KM. because the prosecutor made it abundantly clear on several occasions that P.M., KM., and their families were not willing to talk to the defense. The investigators also spoke with the principal of the school, who was very reluctant to share information.

Bradt also asked Gradoni and Wellmaker to contact Amanda Williamson, Starz’s girlfriend at whose apartment P.M. alleged that her assault occurred. Gradoni and Wellmaker attempted to contact Williamson by going to her apartment on at least two occasions. Williamson either was not home or did not answer the door, and the investigator left a card and a note requesting that Williamson contact the investigators. Williamson never contacted the investigators, but she did speak with the State. Before the first trial setting, Bradt subpoenaed Williamson to testify at trial.

Bradt spoke to one witness himself, Renee Sides, Starz’s ex-wife. Bradt sought information from Sides about the location and appearance of Starz’s third tattoo because, according to the offense reports, P.M. and K.M. were aware of the tattoo but could not describe it. Overall, Bradt believed that Sides would be a good character witness for Starz, as she was supportive and did not believe that he had committed the assaults. Bradt, however, did not ask Sides about the events of Memorial Day, when P.M. alleged Starz assaulted her. At the motion for new trial hearing, Sides testified that Starz had asked Sides if she would be able to watch their son on Memorial Day so that Starz could participate in a bicycle ride that morning. Sides initially told Starz that she would be unable to do so because she was going out of town for the weekend. Sides testified that Starz then arranged for P.M. to babysit their son that morning. But Sides returned from her trip early, and she notified Starz on Sunday night that she would be able to watch their son. Starz told her he was going to use the babysitter instead. Then, Sides testified that between 6:30 and 7:00 A.M. on Memorial Day, Starz called and said that their son had changed his mind and wanted to go home, so Starz took him to Sides’s house at about 7:00 A.M. Starz returned to pick up their son at 11:00 or 11:30 A.M. According to Sides, her son was in the car with Starz and P.M. shortly before the alleged assault occurred, and he could have offered facts to corroborate Starz’s defense. Sides testified, however, that she did not go to the car when Starz dropped their son off or picked him up, so she did not see if anyone was in the car at either time. Ultimately, Sides said that she was unable to offer any information about what Starz did between the time he dropped off and picked up their son.

Judy Young, Sides’ mother and Starz’s former mother-in-law, testified at the hearing that she saw Starz on May 26, 2006, when one of the offenses against K.M. allegedly occurred. Young testified that she was keeping Starz’s son and his younger sister that morning and took them to lunch around 11:00 A.M. When they returned from lunch between 12:00 and 12:30 P.M., Starz was sleeping in his car in Young’s driveway. Starz alleges Young’s testimony could provide an alibi because K.M. alleged that Starz assaulted her at her apartment at 11:15 or 11:30 A.M. on the same day.

Bradt testified that in September 2007, after investigating, he discussed the problems of the case with Starz. Bradt was most concerned that Starz was unable to offer any alibi witnesses for the time that P.M. alleged that Starz assaulted her on Memorial Day, and that phone records showed more than eight-hundred text messages and one-hundred-twenty phone calls between him and P.M., the majority of which, according to Bradt, were from Starz’s cell phone to P.M.’s cell phone. Starz was unable to offer an explanation for either of these problems. Bradt testified that Starz also admitted to lying to P.M.’s parents about taking her to babysit his son while he went on his bike ride. Thus, Bradt suggested that Starz consider pleading guilty because the alleged assaults against P.M. were set to be tried first. Bradt denied telling Starz in September that he had an eighty-percent chance of being convicted, but he admitted to telling Starz, in front of his father, that he would likely die in prison.

Starz testified that, in early September, he still wanted a jury trial because he was innocent. Starz claimed that the expense of going to trial contributed to his decision to plead guilty because he did not think that his family could afford to pay any additional expenses. Starz also testified that his family told him not to worry about the expenses, and they did not disclose to him how much they were spending on his defense. He, however, knew that the family had made some sacrifices in order to pay his defense bills. Bradt told Starz that he believed his chances of winning were not good, although he also said that he would take the case to trial if necessary. Bradt negotiated a plea offer with the State. Starz testified that, in preparation for the plea, Bradt gave him examples of probation restrictions and lifetime restrictions for registered sex offenders, but he did not explain to Starz the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Ultimately, the State offered three different options based on the number of offenses to which Starz was willing to plead guilty. Starz opted to plead guilty to all six charges, each carrying a recommended sentence of six years to be served concurrently, which was the shortest period of incarceration offered by the State. On the day of the plea, Bradt admitted giving Starz plea papers to read over for himself, but Bradt said he was available to answer Starz’s questions thereafter.

Starz entered his guilty plea in open court after oral admonishments from the trial court. The trial court asked Starz if his attorney had answered all of his questions and if he was satisfied with Bradt’s representation; Starz said yes. He also told the trial court that he was not coerced into pleading guilty. Starz testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he was aware that he could have hired a new attorney if he was dissatisfied with Bradt’s representation. Starz was aware that if he pleaded guilty he would go to prison immediately — his mother brought tennis shoes to court for Starz to wear to prison that day.

Discussion

Starz contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the court also erred in excluding evidence offered during the motion for new trial hearing in Starz’s bill of review.

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Starz contends that he involuntarily pleaded guilty because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. A record indicating that the trial court properly admonished the defendant presents a prima facie showing that the guilty plea was made voluntarily and knowingly. See Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); Arreola v. State, 207 S.W.3d 387, 391 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 2006, no pet.). If the record presents such a showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that he entered the plea without understanding the consequences. Edwards v. State, 921 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.). An accused who attests that he understands the nature of his guilty plea and that it is voluntary has a heavy burden on appeal to show that his plea was involuntary. Id.; Dusenberry v. State, 915 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd). The defendant’s uncorroborated testimony that he was misinformed by counsel is not sufficient to show that his plea was involuntary. Fimberg v. State, 922 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd).

Starz entered guilty pleas on all six offenses before the trial court on the record. The trial court asked Starz if he was satisfied with Bradt’s representation and if Bradt had answered all of his questions; Starz said yes. The trial court then admonished Starz as to his absolute right to a jury trial, and asked him if he was pleading guilty because he was guilty and for no other reason, and if he had been coerced into pleading guilty; Starz answered that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty and had not been coerced. The trial court admonished him of the full range of punishment and that the State’s sentencing recommendation is not binding on the trial court. Starz acknowledged that the plea agreement recommended six years’ confinement and lifetime registration as a sex offender.

These admonishments satisfy the requirements of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Tex.Code CRiM. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 2009). During the motion for new trial hearing, Starz testified that he knew he could have replaced Bradt as his lawyer at any time had he been dissatisfied with Bradt’s performance, but it “never crossed [his] mind” to do so. We conclude that the oral waivers and admonishments in the record constitute a prima facie showing that Starz made his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. See Labib v. State, 239 S.W.3d 322, 332 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Starz, therefore, has the burden of showing that he involuntarily entered his plea due to Bradt’s ineffective assistance. Id.

A guilty plea is not voluntary if made as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ex parte Burns, 601 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The first prong of Stnckland requires the defendant to show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Thus, the defendant must prove objectively, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his counsel’s representation fell below professional standards. Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). The second prong requires the defendant to show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068; see also Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 812. In reviewing counsel’s performance, we look to the totality of the representation to determine the effectiveness of counsel, indulging a strong presumption that the attorney’s performance falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance or trial strategy. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813. Furthermore, a claim of ineffective assistance must be firmly supported in the record. Id. (citing McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), overruled on other grounds by Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)).

In the context of a claim that the defendant involuntarily pleaded guilty, the defendant must show that (1) his counsel’s advice was outside the range of competency demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, and (2) that, but for counsel’s erroneous advice, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial. Ex parte Moody, 991 S.W.2d 856, 857-58 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); Labib, 239 S.W.3d at 333. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, “the only required duty of counsel under the most liberal construction when a plea of guilty is entered is that counsel should ascertain if the plea is entered voluntarily and knowingly.” Butler v. State, 499 S.W.2d 136, 139 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). A guilty plea based on erroneous information conveyed by trial counsel to the defendant is involuntary. Labib, 239 S.W.3d at 333; Fimberg, 922 S.W.2d at 207.

Starz presented his ineffective assistance claim to the trial court in a motion for new trial. After a comprehensive five-day hearing, the trial court overruled Starz’s complaint by denying the motion. We therefore analyze the ineffective assistance of counsel issue as a challenge to the denial of the motion for new trial. Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (holding appropriate standard of review for ineffective assistance claim brought forth in motion for new trial is abuse of discretion). In such circumstances, we review the trial court’s application of the Strickland test through an abuse of discretion standard. Id. Thus, we reverse only if the trial court’s decision is arbitrary or unreasonable, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling. Id.

Starz contends that Bradt rendered ineffective assistance because his performance was deficient in numerous ways. Specifically, Starz argues that Bradt failed to: (1) conduct an adequate independent investigation of the facts, contact witnesses, and discover exculpatory evidence; (2) prepare for trial; and (3) communicate information critical to Starz’s decision to plead guilty. We consider each of these points under the two-prong Strickland, analysis.

A. Failure to Investigate

Where a defendant challenges the ineffectiveness of his counsel for failure to investigate the facts on a guilty plea, counsel’s decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments. Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458, 467 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521-22, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2535, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003)). Counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. Id. at 466-67; McFarland, 928 S.W.2d 482, 501 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066). In the plea context, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Briggs, 187 S.W.3d at 469 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 370, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985)). This assessment depends largely on a prediction of whether the evidence would likely have changed the outcome of a trial. Id. A defendant is entitled to rely on counsel to make an independent investigation of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved, and then to offer his informed opinion as to what plea the defendant should enter. Id. (quoting Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 721, 68 S.Ct. 316, 322, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948)).

Starz’s central concern is that Bradt failed to contact and interview witnesses. In his brief, Starz argues that “if trial counsel had contacted the witnesses, he would have uncovered numerous discrepancies in the State’s case, which would have advanced Starz’s position at trial.” To obtain relief on an ineffective assistance claim based on uncalled witnesses, Starz must show that witnesses were available to testify and that their testimony would have been of some benefit to the defense. Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); see also Pinkston v. State, 744 S.W.2d 329, 332 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.) (“An attorney’s failure to investigate or present witnesses will be a basis for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel only where it is shown that the witnesses would have been available and that the presentation of the evidence would have benefitted appellant.”).

In the early stages of the case, Bradt asked Starz to identify witnesses whom Starz believed would be helpful to his defense. In all, Starz identified approximately sixty-six people: students, teachers, and other individuals. Private investigators were able to interview five witnesses from the list Starz and Bradt compiled. Bradt himself spoke only to one witness, Renee Sides, Starz’s ex-wife, and he stated at the motion for new trial hearing that it is his policy to talk to as few witnesses as possible. As an explanation for this strategy, Bradt testified that he wants to avoid (1) becoming a trial witness himself in the event that a witness offers testimony contradicting his or her interview, (2) being disqualified, or (3) being accused of witness tampering. It is both permissible and common for an attorney to engage an investigator to interview witnesses before trial, and the attorney may not always speak to witnesses already interviewed by investigators. See White, 160 S.W.3d at 53 (holding counsel not ineffective for failing to contact or call at trial a witness based on investigator’s interview of the witness). Starz presents no showing that Bradt would have learned more helpful information than his investigators did, and therefore has not shown that Bradt’s decision in these circumstances fell below a minimally acceptable standard.

Bradt’s investigators spoke with five students who agreed to be interviewed. These students offered facts about Starz’s interactions with his students generally, and all of them said that they did not witness the sexual assault on K.M. that she alleged occurred in the classroom. Based on these interviews, Bradt and his investigators determined that none of the other students were likely to provide different information, especially because K.M. alleged that Starz assaulted her behind his desk, where no one else could see the assault. See Hale v. State, 140 S.W.3d 381, 392 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd) (holding counsel not ineffective for failing to interview witnesses who could testify regarding defendant’s interactions with child sexual assault victims but not to facts surrounding alleged acts of sexual abuse or provide an alibi).

Starz also argues that Bradt should have contacted Starz’s girlfriend at the time of the assaults, Amanda Williamson. Williamson indicated her unwillingness to speak to Bradt’s investigators by failing to reply to their attempts to contact her, but Bradt nonetheless subpoenaed her for Starz’s first trial setting. Starz further alleges that Bradt failed to interview a complainant in an extraneous offense that the State intended to introduce at trial. Other evidence, however, indicated that the extraneous complainant recanted and said that the extraneous conduct never occurred. More important, testimony from the motion for new trial hearing indicates that the extraneous complainant lived outside the subpoena range and did not intend to cooperate as a witness. Finally, Starz contends that Bradt did not interview his ten-year-old son, who possessed information about the case. In the motion for new trial hearing, Renee Sides, Bradt’s ex-wife and his son’s mother, testified that she made their son available to Bradt for an interview, but she did not state what information his son possessed and whether it would have been helpful to Starz’s defense.

Judy Young, Starz’s former mother-in-law, is the only witness who testified at the motion for new trial regarding the information she would have provided to Bradt and her availability to testify at trial. Starz claims Young offered an alibi because he was asleep in his car in her driveway when she returned to her home shortly after the time K.M. alleged that Starz assaulted her. Starz never established, however, that Young’s testimony about Starz’s whereabouts would have rebutted K.M.’s testimony about the assault or that Starz’s sleeping in her driveway would have precluded him from being at K.M.’s apartment at the earlier time when K.M. alleged the assault occurred. No one testified that the defense was unaware of this information before Starz pleaded guilty. Nathan Cook, Starz’s roommate at the time of these offenses, also testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he overheard some of the phone calls between Starz and P.M. and could testify as to the circumstances of the text messages and phone calls. Cook, however, did not offer any exculpatory information regarding these circumstances in his testimony. Thus, since Starz did not show that these witnesses either would have offered helpful information or been available to testify at trial, Starz failed to establish that Bradt’s conduct fell below a reasonable professional standard.

Starz next contends that Bradt failed to discover exculpatory evidence. Starz argues that Bradt should have obtained P.M. and KM.’s school records because these records contained evidence of both complainants’ behavioral problems and drug use. At the motion for new trial hearing, Bradt testified that he did not believe this evidence would have been useful to Starz’s case. He believed the school records would have been inadmissible at trial, and that introducing evidence of the complainants’ possible drug use could have been dangerous because other witness interviews indicated that Starz failed to act on in-class drug use by his students. Further, Bradt pointed out that even if evidence of P.M.’s drug use existed, that evidence would not explain the hundreds of calls and text messages between Starz and P.M. or why Starz lied to P.M.’s parents about her whereabouts on Memorial Day. Thus, Bradt did not believe that this evidence would have been useful to Starz’s defense. Even if such information is potentially helpful, Starz has not shown that the defense was unaware of this information and that cross-examination of the complaining witnesses at trial could not yield this information.

Starz also contends that Bradt should have sought independent testing of the DNA evidence from Amanda Williamson’s apartment. According to Bradt, the State did not collect or send the DNA evidence for testing until August 2007, shortly before the second trial setting. The results were not available at the time of Starz’s plea. Bradt testified, however, that Starz panicked when Bradt told him that the State decided to test the DNA' evidence. Starz, on the other hand, testified that he was not concerned about the results. The DNA test results, returned after Starz’s plea, indicated that P.M. was linked to the DNA evidence taken from Amanda Williamson’s apartment. Without knowing whether the results of the DNA testing would incriminate Starz, Bradt could not determine whether an independent test of the DNA evidence would be necessary or a good use of Starz’s economic resources. We hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that Bradt’s failure to conduct independent tests of the DNA evidence in these circumstances does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

We hold that Starz has not shown that Bradt’s investigation fell below a minimally acceptable standard, nor that the outcome of a prospective trial probably would have resulted in a more favorable result, and that but for Bradt’s conduct, he would not have pleaded guilty. We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Starz’s motion for new trial on this ground.

B. Failure to Prepare for Trial

Starz further contends that Bradt was ineffective because he failed to adequately prepare for trial, necessitating Starz’s acceptance of a guilty plea. Specifically, Starz points to Bradt’s failure to subpoena trial witnesses to either trial setting. The clerk’s record contains trial subpoenas for two witnesses for Starz’s first trial setting: Amanda Williamson and the custodian of records for Sprint. The record contains no subpoenas for the second trial setting. Starz contends that this is evidence of Bradt’s unpreparedness for trial. Bradt testified, however, that he prefers to file trial subpoenas shortly before trial in order to prevent the State from discovering which witnesses he plans to subpoena. Furthermore, Starz and Bradt began to negotiate a guilty plea with the State at the beginning of September, two or three weeks before the trial setting, before trial subpoenas were necessary. Starz also failed to show that the testimony from these witnesses would have helped his defense. We hold that the trial court did not err in rejecting this contention.

Starz also contends that Bradt failed to use Starz’s financial resources in an effective manner. Starz claims that the $50,000 the Starzes expended at Bradt’s direction on expert consultants constitutes a misuse of the Starzes’ resources. Starz contends that, instead, Bradt should have hired other experts, such as an independent DNA expert. Starz argues that Bradt’s trial consultant, Kim Hart, provided no tangible benefit to the defense, and Bradt was unable to articulate any specific benefit she provided. Bradt also directed Starz to consult with Joshua Karton, an expert on courtroom presentation, whose services would only have been useful if Starz had gone to trial. Finally, Starz argues that Bradt consulted with medical experts whose value to the defense is unclear. Starz, however, fails to show that these decisions are anything other than matters of trial strategy. See Wynkoop v. State, 251 S.W.3d 628, 631 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd) (holding that counsel’s trial strategy of calling experts to testify that defendant was a good candidate for community supervision rather than medical experts to refute cau sation of victim’s injuries was not unreasonable, and thus counsel was not ineffective). Starz cites Wright v. State, 223 S.W.3d 36, 43-45 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd), as a “very similar scenario” where counsel was ineffective for failing to hire an expert to review the complainant’s therapist’s notes and testify about the therapist’s deviations from standard protocol in a child sexual assault case because the testimony would have supported the defendant’s defensive theory of fabrication. Wright, however, is distinguishable because the defendant did not plead guilty but was found guilty by a jury, and the defendant presented expert testimony at the hearing on the motion for new trial on the alleged improper interview techniques used on the complainant. Id. at 39, 41. We hold that Starz failed to establish that Bradt’s conduct in hiring experts was constitutionally ineffective; thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the guilty plea on this point.

C. Failure to Inform

Starz next contends that Bradt failed to communicate information critical to his decision to plead guilty, rendering his decision unknowing and involuntary. In his brief, Starz argues that Bradt “admits” that he relied on Starz’s own understanding of his constitutional rights. Bradt actually testified that he provided Starz with plea papers to read, and asked Starz if he had any questions. Bradt also stated that he informed Starz that he would be giving up his right to a jury trial and there would be no witnesses. Starz further claims that Bradt failed to inform him of the exact nature of the charges against him, failed to provide him with copies of the indictments, misrepresented the extent of his experience in representing sexual assault defendants, and, at the beginning of the representation, indicated that Starz had a ninety percent chance of winning the case. Bradt contested all these allegations in his testimony at the motion for new trial hearing.

A guilty plea based on trial counsel’s erroneous information conveyed to the defendant is involuntary. Labib, 239 S.W.3d at 333; Fimberg, 922 S.W.2d at 207. Starz, however, fails to advance any incorrect facts or law provided by Bradt that affected Starz’s plea. Thus, Starz failed to overcome the prima facie proof that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and failed to show that Bradt rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by not informing him about his case. We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Starz’s motion for new trial.

II. Exclusion of Evidence Offered in Starz’s Bill of Review

In his second point of error, Starz contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Bradt’s history of client grievances filed against him, which Starz offered in a bill of review through witness testimony and the admission of an unrelated lawsuit against Bradt. Starz argues that the trial court’s refusal to admit this evidence impaired Starz’s ability to impeach Bradt’s defense of his performance as Starz’s trial counsel, and Bradt’s credibility was at the heart of the dispute between Starz and Bradt. Starz also argues that Bradt failed to inform him of his past bar suspensions, and that information would have affected Starz’s choice to rely on Bradt’s judgment. Starz contends that the evidence in the bill of review impeaches Bradt by showing specific cases where his failure to investigate resulted in sanctions.

The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). Under the Texas Rules of Evidence, it is impermissible to introduce evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove the character of a person in order to show conformity therewith. Tex.R. Evid. 404(b). It is also impermissible to use extrinsic evidence to attack a witness’s credibility with specific instances of conduct, other than the conviction of a crime, unless the witness has testified about these matters in a manner inconsistent with the evidence sought to be introduced. See Tex.R. Evid. 608(b). The matters that Starz sought to admit fall within these kinds of inadmissible evidence. Starz did not establish a basis in the trial court for admission of this evidence as an exception to the rules by relating Bradt’s past bar grievance history as relevant in a way that might overcome the precepts of Rule 404(b) — like motive, intent, plan, or pattern. See Tex.R. Evid. 404(b). In addition, Starz does not present any evidence that knowing Bradt’s history with other clients would have factored into his decision to take a plea here, where he made no inquiry into Bradt’s history prior to taking the plea, and points to no affirmative misrepresentation by Bradt made in connection with the information relevant to the plea. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding such evidence from the motion for new trial hearing.

Conclusion

After reviewing the record, we hold that Starz has failed to prove that his guilty plea was involuntary based on a claim of ineffective assistance. The trial court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying Starz’s motion for new trial to set aside the plea. We further hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence Starz presented in his bill of review. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Justice SHARP, concurring, in an opinion to follow.

      . The offenses are as follows: (1) May 22, 2006 sexual assault of K.M. (trial-court case number 1084538; appellate case number 01-07-01074-CR), Tex. Penal Code Ann § 22.011(a)(2)(C) (Vernon Supp. 2008); (2) May 24, 2006 sexual assault of K.M. (trial-court case number 1084539; appellate case number 01-07-01075-CR), id.; (3) May 29, 2006 aggravated sexual assault of P.M. (trial-court case number 1079811; appellate case number 01-07-01076-CR), Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2008); (4) May 29, 2006 aggravated sexual assault of P.M. (trial-court case number 1079812; appellate case number 01-07-01077-CR), Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2)(C) (Vernon Supp. 2008); (5) May 26, 2006 sexual assault of K.M. (trial-court case number 1079813; appellate case number 01-07-01078-CR), id.; and (6) May 23, 2006 improper relationship between educator (appellant) and student (K.M.) (trial-court case number 1079814; appellate case number 01-07-01079-CR), Act of May 30, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 224, § 1, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 1042, 1042 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.12(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008)).

      . P.M. was thirteen at the time of the offenses. K.M. was fourteen at the time of the offenses.