the court held that the discretion of the trial court to impose such sanctions has constitutional limitations. TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917. When a trial court dismisses a ease based on a claimant’s conduct during discovery, it adjudicates the claimant’s cause of action without regard to the merits of the case. Discovery sanctions cannot be used to adjudicate a party’s claims unless that party’s conduct justifies a presumption that his claim lacks merit. Id. at 918. The court further explained that “[s]anctions which are so seve d 167, 171 (Tex.1993) (death-penalty sanctions held inappropriate where nothing in the evidence suggested Remington’s argument lacked merit, a finding necessary to a justify death-penalty sanction); Koepp v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 833 S.W.2d 514 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>). Denton failed to appear for his deposition
holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable holding deathpenalty sanctions inappropriate where party inadvertently failed to comply with courts order and nothing in the record  even approaches the flagrant bad faith or abuse necessary for the imposition of such sanctions holding deathpenalty sanctions inappropriate where plaintiff refused to name coworkers who used drugs and was late in answering interrogatories because of attorneys illness because there was no indication of bad faith holding that without a demonstration of bad faith on the part of the attorney in question sanctions pursuant to this statute are inappropriate holding that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a new affidavit and report complying with section 2622 where there was no indication that the plaintiffs failure to file the report earlier in the litigation was in bad faith