38 . See, e.g., In re Rodriguez, 99 S.W.3d 825 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding), mand. denied, In re Woman's Hosp. of Tex., Inc., 141 S.W.3d 144 (Tex.2004) (denying mandamus relief but stating that "a remedy by direct appeal was inadequate and mandamus would be available in a proper case”); In re Morris, 93 S.W.3d 388, 390 (Tex.App.Amarillo 2002, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief but stating that "because the statute expressed a specific purpose of addressing frivolous claims filed against medical practitioners by requiring dismissal if a proper expert report was not filed, a remedy by direct appeal was inadequate and mandamus would be available in a proper case”); In re Hendrick Med. Ctr., Inc., 87 S.W.3d 773, 775 n. 3 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2002, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>); In re Collom & Carney Clinic Ass’n, 62 S.W.3d
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a 30day grace period but noting that ajlthough we do not reach the question of whether relators have an adequate remedy at law see in re collom  for a discussion of this requirement for a writ of mandamus recognizing petitioner for writ of mandamus must demonstrate clear legal right to the act sought to be compelled and no other plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary cause of law and stating mandamus may not be issued to compel an officials discretionary acts holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law