In Littleton v. Prange, 9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. Civ. App. 1999), cert. denied 531 U.S. 872, 148 L. Ed. 2d 119, 121 S. Ct. 174 (2000), a transsexual, now called Christie, who was born a man but had undergone sex reassignment surgery, brought a medical malpractice suit under Texas' wrongful death statute as a surviving spouse of a male patient. The doctor who was sued filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Christie was a male and, therefore, could not be the surviving spouse of another man. The trial court granted summary judgment to the doctor, and Christie appealed. Christie had a name and sex change made on her birth certificate during pendency of the suit. During the surgical procedures, Christie's penis, scrotum, and testicles were removed, and a vagina and labia were constructed. Christie also had breast construction surgery. One of Christie's doctors testified that Christie "has the capacity to function sexually as a female" after the surgery. 9 S.W.3d at 225. Doctors testified that medically Christie was a woman. Christie married a man by the name of Jonathon in 1989, approximately 9 or 10 years after sex reassignment surgery. The two lived together until Jonathon's death in 1996, after which time Christie filed suit against Jonathon's doctor. In Christie's affidavit, Christie asserted that Jonathon knew about Christie's background and sex reassignment surgery. The court in Littleton stated that in Texas, marriage must be between two parties of the opposite sex. 9 S.W.3d at 225. Further, in order for Christie to sue under the wrongful death statute in Texas, Christie must be the surviving spouse. 9 S.W.3d at 225. Thus, if Christie was a man, summary judgment would be appropriate. After a brief review of what transsexualism is, the court next examined the case law in this area. The court discussed Corbett and the case of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 67 Misc. 2d 982, 325 N.Y.S.2d 499 (1971). The court also referenced such cases as M.T. v. J.T., In re Ladrach, and K. v. Health Division. Littleton, 9 S.W.3d at 227-29. After a review of the case law, the court concluded that Christie was a male as a matter of law. 9 S.W.3d at 231. The court noted that this was an issue of first impression in Texas. 9 S.W.3d at 230. In line with previous cases, the court stated: "It is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of marriages involving transsexuals. . . . It would be intellectually impossible for this court to write a protocol for when transsexuals would be recognized as having successfully changed their sex." 9 S.W.3d at 230. While Christie argued that amputation was "'a pretty important step,'" the court, while agreeing, explained that it had "no authority to fashion a new law on transsexuals, or anything else. We cannot make law when no law exists: we can only interpret the written word of our sister branch of government, the legislature." 9 S.W.3d at 230. Thus, the court found that even though surgery and hormones can make a transsexual male look like a woman, including female genitalia, and in Christie's case, even breasts, transsexual medicine does not create the internal sex organs of a woman (except for a man-made vaginal canal). There is no womb, cervix, or ovaries in the post-operative transsexual female. The chromosomes do not change. Biologically, the post-operative female is still a male. 9 S.W.3d at 230. Even though some doctors would consider Christie a female and some a male, the court concluded: "Her female anatomy, however, is all man-made. The body that Christie inhabits is a male body in all aspects other than what the physicians have supplied." 9 S.W.3d at 231. The dissent in Littleton concluded that the matter could not be decided as a matter of law, that there were genuine issues of material fact, and that therefore an affirmance of summary judgment was precluded. The dissent noted that no law defined how a person's "gender" is to be determined and that since the legislature had not addressed whether a transsexual may be considered a surviving spouse under Texas law, the appellate court could not conclude that judgment should be affirmed as a matter of law. 9 S.W.3d at 232-33 (Lopez, J., dissenting). A petition for writ of certiorari of the Littleton holding was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 2, 2000.