Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Steven Craig Stotts was hauling race cars for Team DGR, LLC, when he rear-ended Young Mo Kang’s vehicle on March 8, 2022, seriously injuring Kang. Kang filed a personal-injury action against Team DGR on January 17, 2025, outside the generally applicable two-year limitations period.
Team DGR moved for traditional summary judgment based on limitations. Kang responded that the accident caused a traumatic brain injury and cognitive impairments that rendered him of unsound mind, tolling limitations under Section 16.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The trial court denied Team DGR’s motion and permitted an interlocutory appeal addressing whether Team DGR had conclusively negated tolling given Kang’s initial recovery, prompt retention of counsel, and pursuit of his claim through counsel.
The summary-judgment record included evidence that Kang retained counsel within two weeks, traveled independently, attended medical appointments, and testified that he cooperated with his attorney. It also included medical and lay evidence of persistent confusion, memory loss, impaired judgment, slowed cognitive processing, and dependence on a friend to arrange counsel, appointments, transportation, paperwork, and communication.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the denial of Team DGR’s traditional summary-judgment motion. Because Kang properly raised unsound-mind tolling, Team DGR bore the burden to conclusively negate that doctrine. The relevant question was not whether Kang had proved incapacity, but whether Team DGR’s evidence established as a matter of law that Kang could participate in, control, or understand the progression and disposition of his claim.
Viewing the evidence in Kang’s favor, the court held that Team DGR did not satisfy that burden. Kang’s neurologist described a traumatic brain injury and cognitive impairments affecting Kang’s ability to manage and understand complex matters, while Kang’s caregiver described serious memory and comprehension problems and extensive reliance on her assistance. The mere retention of counsel did not conclusively establish soundness of mind, particularly because the evidence conflicted over how counsel was retained and did not establish that Kang could communicate with counsel sufficiently or understand his legal rights.
Justice Rambin concurred, emphasizing that the parties had not challenged the way the cited Rollins decision applied Section 16.001. He explained that the judgment followed party-presentation principles and did not constitute an examined assessment of Rollins.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking traditional summary judgment on limitations must conclusively negate a properly raised statutory tolling doctrine, including unsound-mind tolling.
- Retaining counsel and taking some independent actions do not, standing alone, establish that a plaintiff could understand, control, or participate meaningfully in a legal claim.
- Conflicting medical, caregiver, and deposition evidence concerning cognitive capacity prevented Team DGR from conclusively negating tolling.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the demanding burden imposed on defendants who pursue traditional summary judgment based on limitations. When unsound-mind tolling is properly raised, courts must focus on whether the defendant conclusively disproved incapacity, not whether the plaintiff carried the burden that would apply at trial.
For personal-injury litigants, the opinion also clarifies that outward functionality and access to counsel may coexist with cognitive impairments severe enough to support tolling. Evidence concerning a plaintiff’s practical ability to retain information, understand complex issues, and participate meaningfully in the claim may therefore preclude summary judgment.