Texas Supreme Court Changes the Term “Must” in Texas Courts

Texas Supreme Court Changes Meaning of Term Must in Texas Courts | McKay Law

Table of Contents

Submit Your Case

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 18.001 & In Re: Allstate 5/7/2021

The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion on 5/7/2021, In Re Allstate, that will almost certainly result in more personal injury litigation in Texas courts.

In Re Allstate (decided 5/7/2021), the long-standing cost-cutting and time-saving statute is suddenly no longer in effect, removing the need for injury victims to hire expensive medical specialists to testify about the reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment in every instance.

Section 18.001 of the Evidence Code allowed an injured party to present medical expenses by having a custodian sign an affidavit stating that they were reasonable and necessary. The defense could produce a counter-affidavit from a qualified expert within a certain time period if they wanted to contest the reasonableness and necessity. Failure to do so resulted in a waiver of the right to question the care’s reasonableness and need. The following is the rationale for this mandatory exclusion as stated in the statute:

“A party desiring to refute an affidavit allegation must serve a copy of the counter-affidavit on each other party or the party’s attorney of record by.”

What Does “Must” Really Mean?

Dictionary definitions for the word “must” include “be forced to; should (showing necessity), absolutely mandatory.” ‘Must’ is defined in Texas Government Code 311.016 as ‘must’ creates or acknowledges a condition precedent.’

Yes, it is required.

If action “A” is required before action “B,” then logic dictates that “B” cannot exist without “A.” If a party “intending to controvert a claim” MUST do “A,” what is the logical consequence of what happens if they don’t? They don’t get to refute the claim, do they? To put it another way, if you want to do “B,” you must first do “A,” and if you don’t, you won’t get to do “B.” This isn’t a difficult task.

Thousands of trial court cases have acknowledged that the meaning of the term “must” imposes a requirement, as has every Texas court of appeals that has ever construed this statute (which is the vast majority of them).

This has eliminated the requirement for doctors to testify that their costs were reasonable and that the care provided was essential in each and every case. In many circumstances, there are multiple doctors with varying degrees of training. It’s possible that a trial with each of them testifying on reasonableness might drag on for weeks. Section 18.001 was designed to prevent the courts from being overburdened with litigation by requiring the defense, upon proper affidavits presented by the plaintiff, to provide a valid basis for challenging any bill they chose to dispute.

The defense has been denied the right to testify due to a failure to provide reasonable notice in the form of a counter-affidavit signed by a qualified medical expert. This statute was intended to avoid the need for lengthy trials that cost more than they should have. Peril v. Turner, 50 S.W.3d 742, 746 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). Not anymore, it appears.

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 18.001, was overturned.

All that 18.001 accomplished was undone by the In Re Allstate decision. Not only can someone with no medical training analyze a billing database and testify about the appropriateness of the charges, but even if the defendant fails to file a counter-affidavit, they can still surprise Plaintiff at trial by contesting the facts they chose not to counter. “There is no textual support for the idea that the lack of a proper counter-affidavit constitutes a basis to curtail the defendant’s ability to challenge the claimant’s contention that her medical expenses are reasonable and necessary,” they write. 5/7/2021 In re Allstate Really? Please revisit the explanation of the word must from before.

Why did the Texas Supreme Court rule that failing to file counter-affidavits no longer results in contra-evidence being excluded?

The required exclusion of evidence for failing to file a proper counter-affidavit, according to the Texas Supreme Court opinion in In re Allstate, “has no support in the statute’s text.” The absence of a suitable counter-affidavit has no bearing on the admissibility of any evidence under Section 18.001.’ ‘Must’ appears to have lost its meaning.

Imagining a Brave New World Free of Obligations

This decision could spell the end of our ability to rely on any statute or contract that includes the word “must” to establish a requirement. One could argue that this latest Texas Supreme Court judgment holds that just because a statute or a contract requires you to submit notice by a certain date does not mean you are forbidden from doing so. The condition “tenant must offer lessor notice of intend to not renew at least 30 days prior to cancellation” no longer has the effect of barring one from canceling the contract without notice, according to the Supreme Court’s interpretation.

Should vs. Must

Texas Supreme Court Changes the Term “Must” in Texas Courts

“‘Shall’ is a term used instead of ‘must’ when the subject is ‘I’ or ‘us,'” according to the Cambridge Dictionary. If “must” and “shall” are synonymous, the Texas Traffic Code appears to be useless. A driver “must” stop and give assistance…a driver “must” halt before proceeding through a red light. The word “must” appears to have no responsibility under the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re Allstate, so one may argue that shall, which means the same thing, carries no obligation as well.


In In re Allstate, the Texas Supreme Court completely disregards the statute’s plain text and the meaning of the term “must.” As a result, the judgment defeats the aim of section 18.001 in all future cases, ensuring that medical bills will be a battle in every case. This decision does not bode well for accident victims or the Texas legal system. Hopefully, they will review their position, change their minds and ultimately reverse their decision.

Submit Your Case

About McKay Law

Play Video about About McKay Law | Video Cover
Caleb Moore
Caleb Moore
Read More
This business does truly care about their clients and their needs! They have an amazing staff, and are one of the best places in the area for sure!
Amy Patterson
Amy Patterson
Read More
McKay Law and Attorney Lindsay McKay were extremely prompt with in helping me with my wreck! She is very knowledgeable of the law!
Alexandra Serrano
Alexandra Serrano
Read More
She, was very helpful she gonna fights for your right !!! Awesome lawyer and company’s 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Carmen Montoya
Carmen Montoya
Read More
Lindsey and her team were very professional! I am so thankful to have had them work on my case.
Jenny Wakeland
Jenny Wakeland
Read More
Mrs. McKay treats her employees well. She is knowledgeable, professional and trustworthy. She truly cares about her clients.
Cobbie Johnson
Cobbie Johnson
Read More
Very professional greatest law firm I’ve ever worked with.

Why McKay Law?

Lindsey McKay | Sulphur Springs Texas Personal Injury Lawyer | McKay Law – Legally Bold
McKay Law | Legally Bold | Personal Injury Lawyer

Passion For Justice – Compassion For Clients

Compassion. Confidence. Commitment.

20 +

20+ years of combined experience with of counsel addition.

Reasons to Hire
McKay Law

Play Video about McKay Law | 2022 Sulphur Springs Personal Injury Lawyer
VIP / White Glove Service | Reasons to Hire McKay Law

VIP / White Glove Service

We are Available 24/7 - We take care of our client’s needs – whatever they may be – and advise and instruct from beginning to end.

We Care | Reasons to Hire McKay Law

We Care

We hope to change your life and your situation and turn something tragic into something better. No issue is too tiny for us to consider or too big for us to tackle.

We Listen to Learn Your Story | Reasons to Hire McKay Law

We Listen to Learn Your Story

Injuries, pain, the stress of life, the case, finances – We want to know you and be the voice to tell your story for the best results.

Any Legal Issue | Reasons to Hire McKay Law

Any Legal Issue

We are legally bold to help you. If we can’t address, we know the best.

Fight For Best Results | Icon McKay Law

Fight For Best Results

We ensure we fight for the best results possible for your case.

No Fee Unless We Win | Reasons to Hire McKay Law

No Fee

Unless we win and also NO FEE for handling property damage.

Over 40 Years of Service | Reasons to Hire McKay Law

20+ Years of Combined Experience

We have a long line of success and a team that has worked together for decades and has perfected and streamlined the process; making something stressful and painful as seamless and easy as possible.

Dedicated Nurse to Guide You | McKay Law

Dedicated Nurse to Guide Medical Treatment

McKay Law has an in-house specialist guiding our personal injury clients on medical treatment. Read more about our Texas Nursing Board Certified Nurse and How We Assist.

McKay Law Client Reviews on Google

McKay Law's


Free Consultation with Texas Personal Injury Lawyer

No Fees Unless We Win. We Listen To Our Clients.

Play Video about Free Consultation with Texas Personal Injury Lawyer | McKay Law

Lindsey McKay is a dedicated trial attorney with experience and drives to get the best results for her clients. We handle personal injury cases that involve the following matters: drunk driving accidents, nursing home negligence, uninsured or underinsured motorists, motor vehicle accidents, product liability, auto defects, animal bites, work-related injuries, medical negligence and fatalities.

Free Consultation 24/7

You may be owed money. 

Call our Personal Injury Lawyer now: (903) 465-8733 or use the form below. You can also calculate your total damages for settlements.