Emails, Kate Van Wey, attorney, Oct. 9, 2014

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) <wgselby@statesman.com> wrote:

I write seeking to visit about whether you see Abbott’s intervention in the federal suits challenging the malice statute as unreasonable or odd in any way. I ask as we fact-check this Wendy Davis TV ad.

g.

W. Gardner Selby

Reporter / News

Austin American-Statesman

PolitiFact Texas

1:58 p.m.

Oct. 9, 2014

Very unusual in my opinion and experience.  Also, very unreasonable. He is defending a law that essentially gives immunity to hospitals for credentialing dangerous physicians. The law as it now stands, denies access to the Courts for good, tax paying Texas citizens, who..through no fault of their own, were butchered by a highly dangerous surgeon. Even if we prove the hospitals were grossly negligent in hiring and retaining a dangerous surgeon, like Dr. Duntsh ...it isn't enough under the current state of the law. In Texas, we have to prove "malice", meaning we have to prove the hospital had a subjective intent to harm the patient. That is considered to be an impossible standard. It is clearly an erroneous and completely unfair law. He didn't have to intervene in our lawsuits. He chose to.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) <wgselby@statesman.com> wrote:

Did you oppose the attorney general’s intervention? Why or why not?

2:13 p.m.

There is no legal way to oppose the intervention, so we did not.