The Michael Morton Act Under Attack

In 2013, the Texas Legislature unanimously passed the Michael Morton Act, one of the most significant reforms to criminal procedure in state history. Signed into law by Republican Governor Rick Perry, the Act was designed to prevent wrongful convictions by requiring prosecutors to disclose all material evidence as soon as practicable after a timely request by the defense. This meant turning over all the evidence in the possession of prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, removing ambiguity about what must be turned over and when.

Its purpose was clear: to ensure that criminal trials are decided on all the facts, not just those the State chooses to disclose.

The law was passed in response to the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton, who spent nearly 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife, Christine Morton. Key evidence pointing to his innocence was withheld by the prosecution:

• A neighbor reported seeing a suspicious man with a green van near the Morton home before the murder;
• Morton’s young son told family members his father wasn’t home during the attack;
• The victim’s credit card was used in San Antonio days after her death; and
• A bloody bandana containing DNA from another man was found near the crime scene.

That other man, Mark Norwood, was later convicted not only for the murder of Christine Morton but also for a second murder — Debra Baker in 1988 — committed while he remained free due to the State’s suppression of evidence in Morton’s case.

The lead prosecutor, Ken Anderson, knowingly withheld this exculpatory evidence and falsely claimed in court that he possessed nothing favorable to the defense. A Court of Inquiry, convened by the Texas Supreme Court, found Anderson withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. Anderson was criminally charged, pled guilty to contempt of court, surrendered his law license, resigned from the bench, and served jail time — making him the first prosecutor in Texas history to be jailed for misconduct in a wrongful conviction.

Now, House Bill 3330 and Senate Bill 1124 (identical bills) seek to undo key elements of the Michael Morton Act. They would narrow the State’s obligation to disclose evidence, allow prosecutors to unilaterally redact or withhold portions of materials, and shift the burden to defendants to justify requests for discovery. These proposals are not technical adjustments — they represent a rollback of the most important due process reform in Texas criminal law in a generation.

The Michael Morton Act: A Mandate for Transparency Born from Injustice

Prior to the Michael Morton Act, Texas law did not require prosecutors to disclose most evidence in their possession, and many jurisdictions operated with closed file policies. Disclosure was often selective and discretionary, leading to widespread concerns about trial by ambush and the routine withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence. The resulting system bred wrongful convictions and undermined public trust.

The Michael Morton Act addressed these failures by:

• Requiring the disclosure of all material evidence, broadly defined;
• Expanding “the State” to include law enforcement and all government agencies involved in investigations;
• Creating a clear documentary trail for discovery compliance;
• Empowering trial judges to sanction discovery violations, including by excluding improperly withheld evidence.

This represented not just a procedural change but a philosophical shift: from trial by ambush to trial by full disclosure.

HB 3330 and SB 1124 directly attack each of these pillars.

How HB 3330 and SB 1124 Undermine the Michael Morton Act

A. Redefining “The State” to Create Discovery Loopholes

Under the Michael Morton Act, and as confirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Heath (2024), “the State” includes not just prosecutors but law enforcement officers and any agency involved in the investigation. This is essential to ensure that all relevant evidence, even if it never physically touches the prosecutor’s file, is turned over to the defense.

HB 3330 and SB 1124 would dramatically narrow this definition, limiting “the State” to only the prosecuting attorney and the specific agency that filed the charges. Under HB 3330 and SB 1124, evidence held by any government agency outside the prosecuting attorney’s office or the primary investigating agency could fall outside the scope of the State’s discovery obligations. That means a 911 recording stored by a regional communications center, an autopsy report at the medical examiner’s office, a toxicology analysis held by a lab under DPS contract, or even witness statements gathered during a parallel TABC investigation might not be disclosed—unless the defense happens to know of their existence and specifically requests them. The proposed definition encourages compartmentalization of evidence and invites prosecutors to claim ignorance of materials held by sister agencies, undermining the Morton Act’s goal of full and fair disclosure. This redefinition invites exactly the kind of “willful ignorance” the Michael Morton Act was meant to eliminate. Prosecutors could credibly claim they had no duty to seek out exculpatory or impeaching evidence beyond their own agency.

B. Letting Prosecutors Pre-Screen Relevance: A Built-In Conflict

The Michael Morton Act requires disclosure of anything material “to any matter involved in the action.” Courts, including in Watkins v. State (2021), have interpreted materiality broadly, noting that it includes anything logically connected to a consequential fact, even if not independently exculpatory.

HB 3330 and SB 1124 shift the standard: only evidence “relevant to a fact of consequence” must be disclosed. Worse, prosecutors would have sole authority to initially decide relevance. Defense discovery requests would also have to be “timely and specific.”

The danger here is obvious. Prosecutors — incentivized to win convictions — would naturally under-assess the significance of information harmful to their case. This is precisely what happened in Michael Morton’s own prosecution. It would again allow prosecutors to self-censor evidence under the guise of subjective “relevance” determinations.

Further, the “specific request” requirement traps the defense: counsel cannot ask for an item by name if they do not know it exists. The result is that unknown evidence could legally remain hidden.

C. Weakening Judicial Remedies for Discovery Violations

Currently, trial courts can exclude undisclosed evidence as a remedy for discovery violations. This is essential to ensuring compliance: if the consequence for withholding evidence is merely a delay, there is little incentive to comply promptly.

HB 3330 and SB 1124 limit judicial power dramatically. Judges could exclude evidence only if:

• The State knowingly withheld it, or
• There is actual, incurable prejudice.

This standard would all but eliminate exclusion as a meaningful remedy. Most discovery violations stem from negligence or disorganization, not provable “bad faith.” Courts are historically reluctant to find actual prejudice if a continuance can arguably cure the problem.

State v. Heath shows why discretion matters. There, a 911 recording was discovered late. The trial court excluded it, and the CCA affirmed. Heath was not an outlier — it was a textbook application of the Michael Morton Act’s protections.

By gutting exclusion authority, these bills would greenlight sloppy or even tactical late disclosure.

D. Shifting Discovery Burdens Onto the Defense

The bills would flip the discovery dynamic: forcing the defense to initiate specific, justified requests rather than requiring the State to produce everything material.

This creates a serious constitutional concern. The Fifth Amendment protects not just against self-incrimination but against forced disclosure of defense theories. Forcing defense counsel to reveal strategy to justify discovery violates that principle. Moreover, it risks creating litigation over discovery itself — endless mini-hearings about the “necessity” of information before defense lawyers even know what exists.

These bills attempt to sneak reciprocal discovery in through the back door.

E. Allowing Redaction and Withholding Without Court Approval

In civil litigation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3, parties must produce entire relevant documents. Redactions must be justified and subject to court scrutiny. HB 3330 and SB 1124 would allow prosecutors, unilaterally, to redact parts of materials they deem irrelevant or privileged. The defense would only be able to challenge redactions after the fact.

Allowing unilateral prosecutorial redactions, especially of factual material, creates serious risk that crucial evidence will never be disclosed or will be so delayed as to be useless.

Rebutting the Justifications for HB 3330 and SB 1124

A. The Heath Decision Was a Reaffirmation, Not a Radical Shift

Supporters of HB 3330 point to State v. Heath as justification for rolling back discovery protections, claiming the case introduced unworkable burdens by holding prosecutors responsible for evidence they never personally reviewed.

This is a misreading of Heath. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that when a law enforcement agency involved in the investigation possesses evidence, that evidence is imputed to the State — even if the individual prosecutor didn’t know about it. That is not a novel legal principle. It is a faithful application of both the letter and the spirit of the Michael Morton Act.

The Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that the duty to disclose includes a duty to inquire. Prosecutors cannot blind themselves to relevant information simply because it is housed in a different branch of the government.

The “as soon as practicable” standard means that diligence is required, and delays caused by poor communication or bureaucratic silos are not acceptable excuses.

Heath did not expand the law; it enforced it. The problem wasn’t with the law — it was with the prosecution’s failure to meet it. Gutting the Michael Morton Act because the courts finally applied it correctly is both illogical and dangerous.

B. The “Defense Gamesmanship” Narrative Is a Red Herring

Some proponents argue that defense attorneys lie in wait — failing to alert prosecutors to overlooked evidence, only to spring an objection at trial. They frame this as a kind of trap.

But the responsibility to disclose evidence lies with the State. The defense has no legal or ethical duty to assist prosecutors in fulfilling their obligations. Suggesting otherwise flips the adversarial system on its head.

Delays and surprises do not help the defense — they lead to continuances, strained client relationships, and missed opportunities to prepare. The notion that defense attorneys are engaged in “gotcha” tactics is unsupported and distracts from the real problem: the State not following the law.

If prosecutors don’t want evidence excluded, the solution is simple: disclose it on time.

C. Complaints About Discovery Volume and Privacy Are Misleading

Another argument raised is that modern criminal cases involve enormous volumes of data — and that prosecutors are overwhelmed by having to review and produce it. But inconvenience is not a justification for denying defendants the right to a fair trial.

Technology has made disclosure easier, not harder. Digital portals, cloud-based discovery platforms, and metadata search tools allow offices to share entire case files efficiently. The burden argument rings hollow in a post-Michael Morton Act world where most large counties already operate with open file systems.

As for privacy, Texas law already contains tools to protect sensitive information. Articles 39.14 and 39.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allow redaction of victim contact information and shielding of sensitive personal records. Courts can issue protective orders when needed. The Michael Morton Act does not require reckless disclosure — it requires fair disclosure.

HB 3330 and SB 1124 go well beyond addressing legitimate privacy concerns. They give prosecutors a broad, unilateral veto over disclosure — one that can easily be abused or misapplied.

Testimony on HB 3330

A summary of the testimony on House Bill 3330 is included below:

Supporters of HB 3330

Opponents of HB 3330

Why Texas Must Reject HB 3330 and SB 1124

The Michael Morton Act was not simply a legislative fix — it was a moral reckoning. It stood for the proposition that justice requires transparency, that the State cannot be trusted to self-police without accountability, and that a fair trial demands full disclosure of all relevant facts.

HB 3330 and SB 1124 threaten to undo this progress.

Texas already leads the nation in exonerations. The response to that sobering fact should be to strengthen safeguards, not dismantle them. The public deserves a system that values truth more than conviction rates, and defendants deserve a level playing field when their liberty is at stake.

The Fight Isn’t Over: Why Vigilance Still Matters

Even if HB 3330 is left pending in committee this session, the threat it represents is very real — and growing. Its Senate companion, SB 1124 passed the Senate. On April 15, 2025, SB 1124 was approved and sent to the House the next day, where it was referred to the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. Considered as House Bill 3330, the legislation was left pending in committee on April 22, 2025 – at least for now.

If it advances, these sweeping changes to Texas discovery law could move quickly through the House and become law.

This is not the first attempt to roll back the Michael Morton Act. In 2019, Senator Joan Huffman introduced SB 2136, which, like the current bills, sought to limit courts’ ability to exclude evidence unless the State acted in bad faith and caused irreparable harm — the same high bar proposed now. That bill failed, but the strategy behind it has not gone away.

Even if HB 3330 and SB 1124 stall this year, they are part of a broader, persistent effort to narrow the State’s discovery duties and reduce the consequences for noncompliance. Each time these ideas are introduced — whether they pass or not — they gain traction and risk becoming the new norm if met with silence.

That’s why defense lawyers, judges, and the public must stay vigilant. The Michael Morton Act was a landmark reform rooted in the simple idea that fairness requires transparency. Letting this rollback quietly die without resistance only ensures it will return — maybe under a new number or hidden in broader legislation.

If Texas is serious about justice, it must remain serious about accountability. These bills deserve to fail — and to fail loudly.

Varghese Summersett received the Richard L. Knight Rotary Minority Business Award on Friday — a prestigious honor presented by the Rotary Club of Fort Worth to recognize minority-owned businesses that exemplify core values and best practices.

Out of 125 nominated businesses, six finalists were selected and recognized during a special awards luncheon held at the Fort Worth Club. Moving videos showcasing the top three finalists — including Varghese Summersett — were played before the winner was announced.

Varghese Summersett was ultimately named the recipient of the 2025 award, which was presented by Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker.

“It is an incredible honor to receive the Richard L. Knight Rotary Minority Business Award,” said Benson Varghese, founder and managing partner of Varghese Summersett. “To be recognized by a city and an organization that has given so much to businesses like ours is truly humbling. Fort Worth has embraced me and our firm from the very beginning, and I am deeply grateful. This award is a reflection not just of our team’s hard work, but of a community that believes in lifting up others. We are proud to call Fort Worth home.”

The Rotary Minority Business Awards program was established five years ago by the Rotary Club of Fort Worth to honor minority-owned businesses that have demonstrated core elements of the Rotary through leadership, community engagement, and outstanding business practices in Fort Worth.

This year, the award was renamed to honor the late Richard L. Knight, a respected community leader who passed away in the spring of 2024. Knight made significant and lasting contributions to Fort Worth’s minority business community, particularly through his visionary leadership and tireless advocacy.

Knight’s family was present at the event and paid tribute to his legacy, along with remarks from NBC5 anchor Deborah Ferguson, who emceed the program, and last year’s award recipient, Jeff Postell Jr., president and CEO of Post L. Group.

“Richard Knight was a great entrepreneur,” Postell said. “And as entrepreneurs, you are the fuel that powers the people in our community.”

Following the tributes and remarks, the six finalists were recognized for their outstanding achievements before the top honorees were announced. They included:

• 6th Place: MOOV USA Inc.
• 5th Place: iSalt (Institute for Success and Leadership Training)
• 4th Place: HUSTLE-BLENDZ COFFEE
• 3rd Place: Vasse Rendezvous
• 2nd Place: CleanJet
• 1st Place: Varghese Summersett

After Varghese Summersett was announced as the winner, Benson Varghese took a few moments to express gratitude and reflect on his personal journey.

“I took my wife, Anna Summersett, and my three boys to India last month. It was their first time visiting where I was born and spent my formative years,” Varghese said. “I was born in a house without plaster on the walls, without running water. In South India, electricity comes and goes. To go from that to where we are today — to be blessed to work with amazing people and impact families — is incredible. It reminds me that it’s not just the United States that is the land of opportunity — Fort Worth is uniquely special.

“Eleven years ago, I decided to hang a shingle and start a law firm. There weren’t many people who looked like me doing what I was trying to do. But Fort Worth embraced me. I can’t think of a single instance where I wasn’t given an opportunity based on where I was from or what I looked like. What this Rotary Club and this community have built — a place where everyone is welcome and businesses are supported — is commendable. We are honored to be part of it.”

About Varghese Summersett

Varghese Summersett is a premier criminal defense, personal injury, and family law practice dedicated to helping people through life’s greatest challenges. The firm’s roster is full of highly experienced, award-winning attorneys committed to providing exceptional legal services. Varghese Summersett has been named a “Fort Worth Chamber Small Business of the Year,” a “DFW Favorite,” a “Best Place to Work in Fort Worth,” and a “Best Place for Working Parents,” among numerous other accolades. Learn more about Varghese Summersett at versustexas.com.

When you’re injured in an accident, you may assume that any insurance coverage you have—health, auto, or otherwise—will take care of your bills without strings attached. But if another party is responsible for your injuries, your insurance company may seek repayment through a process known as subrogation.

In Texas, subrogation in personal injury cases can significantly impact the amount of compensation you receive. In this article, the personal injury attorneys at Varghese Summersett explain subrogation, how it could impact your settlement, and why an experienced attorney is vital in subrogation matters.

What is Subrogation in Personal Injury Claims in Texas?

Subrogation is a legal right that allows an insurance company to seek reimbursement for money it has paid on your behalf from a third party who is legally responsible for your loss. In the context of a personal injury case, this typically means your insurer wants to be paid back from the compensation you receive—either through a settlement or a court award.

Here’s a common example: Suppose your health insurance pays $15,000 in medical expenses after you’re injured in a car accident. Later, you receive a $100,000 settlement from the at-fault driver’s insurance company. Your health insurer may then assert a subrogation claim to recoup the $15,000 it paid for your treatment.

When an insurance company exercises its right of subrogation, it essentially steps into your shoes to pursue repayment from the person or party that caused the harm—most often the at-fault driver or their insurer. The primary goal is to shift the financial burden back to the responsible party and recover the funds the insurer advanced on your behalf, which may include medical bills, property damage, or other covered losses.

Subrogation can take different forms depending on the circumstances. Sometimes, the insurance company goes directly after the at-fault party or their insurer. However, more commonly, the insurer asserts its subrogation rights against you, the injured party, by placing a lien on your legal recovery. That means when you receive compensation, a portion of it may be earmarked to reimburse your insurance company for the expenses it already paid.

While this process helps ensure that the party at fault ultimately bears the financial responsibility, it can reduce the amount you actually take home from your settlement. That’s why it’s important to understand how subrogation works and how it may impact your personal injury recovery.

How Subrogation Works in Personal Injury Cases

Subrogation in personal injury cases comes into play after you receive medical care and your insurance company pays your bills. If a third party is liable for your injuries, your insurer may notify you of its intent to pursue subrogation. Once you receive compensation from the at-fault party—either through a settlement or court award—your insurer may demand reimbursement for the amount it paid on your behalf.

This is common in:

• Car accidents
• Truck accidents
• Slip and falls
• Workplace injuries with third-party liability

Subrogation typically occurs behind the scenes, but it can delay the disbursement of your settlement funds if not handled properly. In some cases, your attorney may need to negotiate with the insurer to reduce the reimbursement amount, especially if the total settlement is insufficient to cover all of your damages. Failing to address subrogation claims early in the process can lead to unexpected deductions and complications when it comes time to receive your share of the compensation.

Types of Insurance that May Assert Subrogation Claims

Several types of insurance carriers may have subrogation rights:

• Health Insurance: Private health insurers often include subrogation clauses in their policies.

• Auto Insurance: If your policy includes Personal Injury Protection (PIP) or Medical Payments (Med Pay), your auto insurer may seek reimbursement.

• Workers’ Compensation: If you were injured on the job due to a third party’s negligence, the workers’ comp insurer may subrogate.

• Government Programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE have subrogation rights under federal and state law. These liens must be satisfied before funds can be disbursed.

Subrogation vs. Reimbursement: What’s the Difference?

While often used interchangeably, subrogation and reimbursement are distinct legal concepts—each with unique implications for personal injury claimants.

Subrogation occurs when your insurance company steps into your legal shoes and asserts a right to recover money from the party responsible for your injuries. In this scenario, the insurer may file a claim or take legal action directly against the at-fault party or their insurer to recoup the amount it paid on your behalf. You are not necessarily involved in the pursuit, but your insurer is acting based on your legal right to recovery.

Reimbursement, on the other hand, typically involves your insurer seeking repayment from you—specifically, from the settlement or court award you receive. Instead of pursuing the at-fault party directly, the insurer asserts a right to be paid back from your financial recovery. This often takes the form of a lien on your personal injury settlement.

In Texas, courts may treat these concepts differently depending on a number of factors, including the language in your insurance policy, the type of insurance plan involved (such as private insurance vs. an ERISA-governed plan), and applicable state or federal laws

Do I Have to Pay My Insurance Company Back?

If your insurer has a valid subrogation clause in your policy, the answer is usually yes. Ignoring a subrogation claim can result in legal action or delays in the release of your settlement funds.

However, the amount owed can often be reduced through negotiation, especially if:

• Your recovery is limited.
• You were not made whole.
• Your attorney assisted in securing the settlement.

How Subrogation May Affect Your Settlement

Subrogation can take a sizeable bite out of your settlement—and if you’re not prepared, the final amount you receive may be much less than you anticipated. When your insurance company asserts a subrogation claim, they are seeking repayment for the benefits they provided during your treatment. This repayment typically comes directly from your personal injury settlement or court award.

Let’s break it down with a simple example:

Settlement Breakdown Example:

• Total Settlement: $75,000
• Attorney’s Fees (33%): $25,000
• Subrogation Lien: $20,000
• Net to Client: $30,000

In this scenario, although the headline settlement amount is $75,000, your actual take-home amount is only $30,000 after legal fees and the insurer’s lien are paid. That can be a surprising and disappointing outcome for many injury victims who were counting on a larger recovery—especially if the settlement also needs to cover future care, lost wages, or non-economic damages like pain and suffering.

Fortunately, an experienced personal injury attorney can play a crucial role in protecting your recovery. Attorneys often negotiate with insurance companies to reduce subrogation liens, arguing factors such as the extent of the injury, the limited size of the settlement, or the degree to which the insurer benefited from the attorney’s efforts. In many cases, these negotiations can result in substantial reductions, putting more money back in your pocket.

It’s also worth noting that some liens—particularly those from government programs like Medicaid or Medicare—are governed by specific statutes and procedures. These require careful handling to avoid delays or legal complications, making skilled legal representation even more important.

Can Subrogation Claims Be Negotiated?

Yes—subrogation claims can, and often should, be negotiated. In many personal injury cases, your attorney can work to reduce the amount your insurance company seeks to recover, ultimately increasing your net settlement. Several legal doctrines come into play when evaluating and negotiating subrogation claims.

The Made Whole Doctrine (Texas Law)

Under Texas law, the Made Whole Doctrine holds that an insurer generally cannot enforce its subrogation rights unless the injured party has been fully compensated—or “made whole”—for all losses, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. In other words, your insurer typically has to wait its turn until you are completely reimbursed for your damages.

However, there’s an important caveat: this doctrine can be contractually waived. Many insurance policies—especially those governed by federal ERISA law—include language that explicitly overrides the Made Whole Doctrine. If the plan waives this protection, the insurer may be entitled to reimbursement even if you have not been fully compensated.

The Common Fund Doctrine

Another important principle is the Common Fund Doctrine, which may require your insurer to share in the cost of recovering the settlement. If your attorney’s efforts resulted in the financial recovery from which the insurer wants repayment, the insurer may have to reduce its lien by a proportionate share of your legal fees. This ensures that the burden of legal costs isn’t unfairly placed solely on you while the insurer benefits from the outcome.

Bottom Line
Subrogation claims are rarely set in stone. A knowledgeable personal injury attorney can evaluate your case, scrutinize the insurance plan language, and apply these doctrines to negotiate a more favorable resolution—helping you keep more of your settlement where it belongs: in your hands.

What Happens if I Ignore a Subrogation Claim?

Ignoring a subrogation claim is risky and can have serious financial and legal consequences. If you fail to address the claim, the insurance company may file a lawsuit against you to recover the money it paid, potentially dragging you into costly litigation. In some cases, they may delay or block the disbursement of your settlement until the lien is resolved. If the claim involves government benefits—such as Medicare or Medicaid—noncompliance can trigger penalties, interest, or even future benefit denials. Resolving subrogation claims promptly helps protect your recovery and ensures compliance with both legal and contractual obligations.

Tips for Dealing with Subrogation in Personal Injury Cases

Navigating a personal injury claim is challenging enough without the added layer of subrogation. Yet, understanding and addressing subrogation early in the process is essential to protect your financial recovery. Insurance companies are often quick to assert their rights to reimbursement, and if you’re not careful, a large portion of your settlement could end up going back to your insurer. Fortunately, with proactive steps and the right legal guidance, you can minimize the impact of subrogation on your case.

Here are some key tips to help you manage subrogation effectively:

• Hire a personal injury attorney early. Subrogation claims can be legally complex and full of fine print. An experienced attorney knows how to interpret insurance policies, apply relevant legal doctrines, and negotiate reductions.
• Request a copy of your insurance policy. Review it carefully, or have your attorney do so, to identify subrogation clauses or language that waives protections like the Made Whole Doctrine.
• Keep track of medical bills. Maintain detailed records of all medical expenses paid by you or your insurer. This documentation is crucial for validating or disputing a subrogation lien.
• Don’t settle without addressing subrogation. Before finalizing any settlement, ensure all subrogation claims have been identified and negotiated. Failing to do so can lead to legal action or withheld funds.

By staying organized, informed, and proactive, you can avoid costly mistakes and reduce the amount you may owe back to your insurer. Partnering with a knowledgeable personal injury attorney ensures that subrogation is handled properly—giving you the best chance of maximizing your settlement and moving forward with peace of mind.

Why a Personal Injury Attorney is Crucial in Subrogation Matters

Subrogation can significantly reduce your final settlement if not properly addressed. That’s why having an experienced personal injury attorney is essential. At Varghese Summersett, we take a strategic, proactive approach to protect your financial recovery. Our attorneys:

• Carefully analyze insurance policies for subrogation and reimbursement provisions
• Aggressively negotiate lien reductions with insurers and benefit providers
• Challenge improper, overstated, or unenforceable subrogation claims
• Ensure full compliance with Texas and federal laws, including ERISA and Medicaid/Medicare regulations

We’ve helped countless clients maximize their settlements by tackling subrogation issues head-on—before they become costly obstacles.

How Varghese Summersett Can Help

At Varghese Summersett, we understand that every dollar matters after a serious injury. Subrogation isn’t just legal jargon—it’s a critical part of the settlement process that can directly impact your financial future. We don’t just explain how subrogation works—we actively work to minimize its effect on your recovery.

If you’ve been injured and are concerned about how subrogation could affect your case, we’re here to help. Call us today at 817-203-2220 for a free consultation. Our team will fight to ensure you keep as much of your settlement as possible, so you can focus on what truly matters: healing and moving forward.

On April 2, 2025, a devastating incident during a high school track meet in Frisco left a community in mourning and raised difficult questions about youth violence and the fragile line between rivalry and real-life consequences.

Austin Metcalf, 17, a beloved student-athlete at Frisco Memorial High School, was fatally stabbed in the chest in front of teammates, family members, and spectators. The accused: another 17-year-old student, Karmelo Anthony, from Frisco Centennial High School. The fatal confrontation unfolded under Memorial’s team tent in the stands at Kuykendall Stadium—a place where spirited cheers suddenly turned to chaos and sorrow.

In this article, the experienced criminal defense attorneys at Varghese Summersett break down the tragic events, the criminal charge Anthony is now facing, and the legal defenses that may be raised under Texas law—including the concept of self-defense.

The Track Meet Murder: What Happened?

According to news reports and public documents, Anthony was seated near or under the Memorial High School tent when Metcalf asked him to leave because he didn’t go to their school. The situation escalated when Anthony allegedly became aggressive, reached into his bag, and warned, “Touch me and see what happens.” When Metcalf reportedly either pushed, touched, or grabbed Anthony to make him move, Anthony allegedly pulled out a black knife and stabbed him once in the chest.

Metcalf collapsed in the arms of his twin brother, Hunter Metcalf, who tried desperately to save his life by applying pressure to the wound. CPR was administered by athletic trainers, and EMS rushed him to the hospital, but he was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

Anthony fled the scene, but was quickly apprehended. In his initial statements to police, he admitted to the stabbing, saying, “I’m not alleged—I did it,” and questioned whether his actions could be considered self-defense.

He is now charged with first-degree murder and is being held in Collin County Jail on a $1 million bond.

Austin Metcalf: A Life Lost Too Soon

Austin Metcalf was more than just a student—he was a star athlete and a role model. The 17-year-old linebacker, recently named MVP of his football team, was known for his integrity, leadership, and a 4.0 GPA. He dreamed of playing college football and had a promising future ahead. His death has left the community, especially his twin brother Hunter and his parents Jeff and Meagan Metcalf, utterly heartbroken.

A GoFundMe campaign supporting the Metcalf family has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, a testament to the widespread grief and support from across Texas and beyond.

Karmelo Anthony: Now the Center of a Legal Firestorm

Karmelo Anthony, also 17, was a junior at Frisco Centennial High School. Described by classmates as quiet, he attended the track meet to support his school team, but he did not compete.

Since the incident, his name has become synonymous with a tragic moment that has gripped the Frisco community and ignited debate over intent, provocation, and the right to self-defense. Now facing a first-degree murder charge, Anthony’s fate lies in the hands of the criminal justice system—a sharp and sobering contrast to what should have been an ordinary spring day for two high school students.

What Constitutes Murder in Texas?

Under Texas Penal Code § 19.02, a person commits murder if they:

• Intentionally or knowingly cause the death of another person;
• Intend to cause serious bodily injury and commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that results in death; or
• Cause a death while committing or attempting to commit another felony (known as felony murder).

Murder in Texas is classified as a first-degree felony, punishable by 5 to 99 years—or life—in prison, along with a fine of up to $10,000. However, under certain circumstances, the charge may be reduced or reclassified, depending on factors like the defendant’s intent, mental state, and any applicable defenses such as self-defense or sudden passion.

What is Self-Defense in Texas?

Anthony’s legal team issued a public statement acknowledging the tragedy and asserting Anthony’s right to a fair and impartial legal process. It has been suggested that Anthony acted in self-defense, a claim that will be at the heart of the case.

Under Texas Penal Code 9.31 and 9.32, self-defense is justified when:

• The person reasonably believes force is immediately necessary to protect themselves from another’s use of unlawful force;
• Deadly force is necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or certain violent crimes;
• The person did not provoke the incident and was not engaged in criminal activity.

To succeed, Anthony’s legal team must prove that he:

• Reasonably believed he was in imminent danger;
• Used proportional force in response;
• Did not provoke the altercation;
• Was legally present and not engaged in a crime at the time.

Challenges to the Track Meet Murder Self-Defense Claim

Prosecutors will likely argue that Anthony’s use of a knife—deadly force—against an unarmed teen during a verbal and minor physical dispute was excessive and disproportional. Further complicating the self-defense claim in the track meet murder:

• Witnesses report that Anthony was the one sitting under Memorial’s tent and may have escalated the confrontation with threatening words.
• One account suggests Anthony opened his bag first, reached inside, and issued a warning—actions that could be viewed as provocative.
• Moreover, there is no indication that Metcalf had a weapon or made any overt threats beyond trying to remove Anthony from a restricted area.

Other Possible Legal Outcomes in the Track Meet Murder

While Anthony is currently charged with first-degree murder, Texas law may allow for lesser offenses if supported by evidence including:

• Manslaughter: Involves recklessly causing death. If Anthony’s lawyers can prove he didn’t intend to kill Austin but acted recklessly in a heated moment, this could reduce the charge.
• Criminally Negligent Homicide: Applies when death results from negligence rather than intentional or reckless conduct. However, the use of a knife makes this charge less likely.
• Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon: This charge may apply if Anthony is found to have caused serious bodily injury with a knife but without intent to kill. Since Metcalf died, however, the state opted for a murder charge.

Possible Defenses for the Track Meet Murder

Karmelo Anthony’s legal team may raise several key defenses in the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf:

1. Self-Defense
   Anthony has already suggested that he acted in self-defense after being physically confronted by Metcalf. Under Texas law, the use of deadly force is justified if a person reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent serious harm. His attorneys will argue that he perceived an imminent threat and responded accordingly. However, the prosecution may contend that using a knife against an unarmed teen was excessive and that Anthony may have provoked the encounter.

2. Lack of Intent
   To secure a murder conviction, prosecutors must prove Anthony acted intentionally or knowingly to cause death. His defense may argue the stabbing was a panicked, impulsive reaction—not a deliberate act—which could support a lesser charge such as manslaughter or aggravated assault.

3. Sudden Passion
   If convicted of murder, Anthony’s attorneys could seek a reduced sentence by claiming he acted in “sudden passion”—an intense emotional response to provocation. If accepted, this could reduce the charge from a first-degree to a second-degree felony, significantly lowering the potential prison term.

Ultimately, the strongest defenses likely center around self-defense and lack of intent. If convicted, his legal team may seek leniency by presenting sudden passion as a mitigating factor during sentencing.

The Broader Legal and Social Impact

The track meet murder has sparked a media firestorm, polarized public opinion, and generated substantial online misinformation, including fabricated police documents. The Frisco Police Department and FBI are actively investigating these fake posts.

Two crowdfunding campaigns reflect the divided public response. While the Metcalf family’s fundraiser has exceeded a quarter of a million dollars, Anthony’s legal defense fund briefly reached $140,000 before being taken offline.

A Community in Mourning and Uncertainty

As both families prepare for a long legal battle, the Frisco community continues to grieve. For Austin’s family, no legal outcome will bring their son back. For Anthony’s family, the fight for justice and understanding has just begun. The track meet murder case is far from over—and the legal questions it raises will continue to evolve as new facts emerge and court proceedings unfold.

A new bill in the Texas House of Representatives is sparking controversy by proposing significant changes to personal injury law that critics argue would favor insurance companies and large corporations at the expense of everyday Texans who get injured or lose loved ones due to negligence.

Texas House Bill 4806,  and its companion Senate Bill 30, seeks to significantly alter how personal injury claims are handled in the state. The bill, if passed, would implement substantial changes to how damages are calculated, what evidence can be presented in court, and how medical expenses are reimbursed in personal injury cases.

The 24-page proposed legislation has sparked intense debate, with strong opinions on both sides. Proponents argue it will prevent excessive litigation and reduce insurance costs, while opponents claim it will limit personal injury victims’ ability to recover fair compensation and reduce corporate accountability. Critics have also labeled this bill as part of a broader effort to curb so-called “nuclear verdicts” —jury awards that result in exceptionally high damages against defendants.

The personal injury attorneys at Varghese Summersett explain the key provisions of this bill, offer examples of how it harms injury victims, and outline what Texans can do to fight against this legislation.

Key Provisions of House Bill 4806

1. Restrictions on Medical Expense Recovery

One of the most controversial aspects of HB 4806 is its impact on how medical expenses are calculated in personal injury claims. Under current Texas law, plaintiffs can seek recovery for medical expenses that have been billed, even if they have received reductions or adjustments through insurance or other agreements.

HB 4806 proposes that injury victims should only be able to recover the amount actually paid, rather than the full amount billed by healthcare providers. This change would dramatically reduce the amount plaintiffs can claim in damages, ultimately benefiting insurers and large corporations at the expense of injured Texans. Additionally, it would limit recovery for medical expenses incurred under Letters of Protection (LOPs), which many personal injury victims rely on for medical care.

Further, HB 4806 ties medical expense recovery to a state database, limiting reimbursement to 150% of the median amount paid by non-government third-party payers. This means that individuals who receive treatment at hospitals with higher costs or who lack insurance may face significant financial hardship due to reimbursement limits.

Additionally, failure to use available health insurance could be considered a failure to mitigate damages, meaning victims could be penalized for not using insurance, even if they preferred or were advised to seek care elsewhere.

HB 4806 also eliminates the controverting affidavit, making it easier for insurance companies to dispute medical costs. Instead of requiring a formal affidavit to challenge medical expenses, defendants can now simply file a notice of intent to contest medical charges, making it harder for plaintiffs to prove their damages.

2. Caps on Non-Economic Damages

Texas currently does not cap non-economic damages for most personal injury claims, except for medical malpractice cases, where a $250,000 cap applies. HB 4806 could extend similar restrictions to general personal injury claims, significantly limiting the compensation available to victims of serious accidents. The bill seeks to introduce or expand caps on damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of companionship, making it harder for injured individuals to receive full and fair compensation.

Additionally, the bill proposes new definitions for pain and suffering, requiring plaintiffs to meet a higher burden of proof to recover damages for emotional distress and long-term suffering. It would also redefine “mental or emotional pain or anguish as requiring proof of a “grievous and debilitating” impact on daily life, making it significantly harder for victims to recover fair compensation for psychological trauma.

Texas House Bill 4806 further requires judges to justify non-economic damage awards that exceed certain limits. If a jury awards damages above a predetermined cap, the judge must provide written justification based on past Texas case law, adding another hurdle for plaintiffs seeking fair compensation.

3. Changes to Admissible Evidence in Court

Currently, plaintiffs can present a full range of evidence to establish the severity of their injuries and the impact on their lives. HB 4806 aims to tighten these rules by limiting what types of medical and financial evidence can be introduced. This could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prove their case, especially in complex injury claims where future medical expenses and long-term disability are factors.

The bill also limits jury-anchoring, which means attorneys would be prohibited from suggesting specific monetary amounts for damages during trial, making it more challenging for juries to assess fair compensation.

4. Proposed Changes to Liability Standards

Texas follows a modified comparative fault system, where a plaintiff can recover damages if they are 50% or less at fault for an incident. HB 4806 proposes stricter liability rules that would make it harder for injury victims to recover compensation if they are found even slightly at fault for their injuries. This could disproportionately impact victims in car accidents, workplace injuries, and product liability cases, where liability is often contested.

5. Unanimous Jury Requirement for Non-Economic Damages

HB 4806 mandates that jurors must unanimously agree on the amount of non-economic damages awarded in personal injury cases. This is a significant departure from the current rule, which allows verdicts with 10 out of 12 jurors in agreement. By requiring all 12 jurors to agree on non-economic damages, the bill makes it much harder for injured individuals to secure compensation for pain, suffering, and mental anguish.

6. Prejudgment Interest Changes

Under HB 4806, prejudgment interest will only apply to economic damages, and it will only begin accruing from the date medical expenses were actually paid, rather than from the date of injury. This change significantly limits the amount of interest an injured party can recover, further reducing overall compensation.

Who Benefits from Texas House Bill 4806?

Supporters of HB 4806 argue that it is necessary to curb what they perceive as excessive litigation and inflated personal injury settlements. They claim that allowing plaintiffs to recover billed, rather than paid, medical expenses creates an unfair financial burden on insurers and businesses, leading to higher insurance premiums for all Texans.

Additionally, proponents argue that placing reasonable limits on non-economic damages will prevent frivolous lawsuits and ensure that Texas remains a business-friendly state. They believe that excessive personal injury awards drive up healthcare costs and discourage investment in the state’s economy. Here’s who benefits from HB 4806:

• Insurance Companies: By reducing the amount they are required to pay in claims, insurance providers stand to save millions, increasing their profitability.
• Large Corporations: Businesses facing liability lawsuits, particularly in industries like construction, manufacturing, and transportation, would benefit from reduced financial exposure.
• Medical Providers with Insurance Ties: Healthcare entities aligned with insurers may also see indirect benefits, as the bill could discourage high-cost personal injury claims.

Who Opposes House Bill 4806 and Why?

House Bill 4806 faces strong opposition from several groups due to its potential to limit the rights of injury victims. PI victims are among the most affected, as the bill restricts their ability to recover fair compensation for medical expenses and non-economic damages. This shift in financial burden from negligent parties to victims could leave many without adequate support for their injuries or losses. Here’s who opposes HB 4806:

• Injury Victims: The biggest losers under HB 4806 would be individuals who suffer serious injuries due to negligence. By limiting what they can recover, the bill shifts the financial burden from negligent parties to the victims themselves.
• Personal Injury Attorneys: Lawyers who fight for injury victims argue that this bill is designed to benefit corporations and insurers at the expense of everyday Texans.
• Consumer Advocacy Groups: Organizations dedicated to protecting consumer rights believe Texas House Bill 4806 will make it harder for victims to receive fair compensation, allowing negligent parties to escape full accountability.

How HB 4806 Could Impact Injury Victims

• Example 1: Car Accident Victim
  A driver is hit by a distracted truck driver and incurs $100,000 in medical expenses. Due to insurance adjustments, the actual payment is reduced to $50,000. Under HB 4806, the victim could only claim the $50,000 rather than the full $100,000, leaving them to cover the difference.
• Example 2: Workplace Injury
  A construction worker falls due to unsafe working conditions and suffers permanent disability. If HB 4806 places stricter limits on non-economic damages, their pain and suffering compensation could be capped, regardless of the lifelong impact of the injury.
• Example 3: Medical Malpractice Case
  A patient undergoes a surgical procedure and is left with permanent complications due to negligence. If HB 4806 expands caps on non-economic damages beyond existing medical malpractice laws, their ability to recover for pain, suffering, and loss of quality of life could be severely limited.

What Texans Can Do if They Oppose House Bill 4806

For those who believe Texas House Bill 4806 unfairly limits injury victims’ rights, there are several ways to take action:

• Contact State Legislators: Texans can call, write, or email their state representatives to express opposition to the bill and advocate for victims’ rights.
• Support Advocacy Groups: Organizations such as Texas Watch and the Texas Trial Lawyers Association are actively fighting against laws that limit consumer protections.
• Attend Public Hearings: If the bill moves forward, public hearings will be held. Attending and providing testimony can help put pressure on lawmakers.
• Engage on Social Media: Spreading awareness and mobilizing others through social media campaigns can amplify the opposition’s voice.

Varghese Summersett: Advocating for Injury Victims

At Varghese Summersett, we fight tirelessly for injury victims against powerful insurance companies and corporations that attempt to limit their financial liability. HB 4806 is another example of how big business tries to tip the scales against ordinary Texans. Our firm is dedicated to ensuring injury victims receive the full and fair compensation they deserve.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to someone else’s negligence, don’t let unfair laws or insurance tactics stand in your way. Contact Varghese Summersett today at 817-203-2220 for a free consultation, and let us fight for you.