Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, the University of Texas Health Science Center (UT), brings this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in favor of the appellee, Terry Schroeder. In January 1998, Schroeder’s doctor referred her to UT for the treatment of gum disease. A graduate student, Dr. Nicholas Tsoukalas, was assigned to handle Schroeder’s gum disease under the supervision of Dr. Frederick Silverman. Dr. Tsoukalas recommended that Schroeder undergo a full mouth reconstruction that consisted of 1. the grafting of gum tissue; 2. crown lengthening surgeries; 3. multiple tooth preparations; and 4. the crowning of prepared teeth. The dental procedures took more than two-and- one-half years to complete and cost Schroeder more than $16,000, payable to UT. Schroeder also alleged that she paid an additional $100,000 to doctors outside UT. Schroeder sued UT, alleging medical malpractice. In her first amended petition, she added a claim of battery against Dr. Frederick Silverman. UT filed a plea to the jurisdiction. UT and Silverman also filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied UT’s plea to the jurisdiction. UT filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. UT appeals from this order. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. To waive UT’s governmental immunity, Schroeder had to allege facts that demonstrated UT’s waiver of governmental immunity. Schroeder predicated UT’s waiver of governmental immunity on Texas Tort Claims Act �101.021(2). The evidence indisputably shows that Tsoukalas was a graduate student at UT and received no compensation from UT. Schroeder does not argue to the contrary. Rather, Schroeder asserts that subsection two of �101.021 is different from subsection one because subsection two does not contain the term, “paid employee,” thus indicating the legislature’s intent that “paid employee” is not a prerequisite to waive UT’s governmental immunity. Although the term “paid employee” is not contained within subsection two, the Supreme Court of Texas has interpreted subsection two of �101.021 to require that a governmental employee use the tangible personal property. The court holds that Schroeder did not demonstrate a waiver of governmental immunity by UT. UT contends that the trial court erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction on Schroeder’s negligent supervision claim. Schroeder contends that even if Dr. Tsoukalas was not UT’s employee, UT waived its immunity because a paid employee (Silverman) failed to “competently supervise a state student who, in turn, injures another with tangible personal property.” Schroeder cites to Texas A&M Univ. v. Bishop, 105 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2002). When Schroeder filed her brief, the Bishop opinion was still good law. Since then, however, the supreme court has reversed the Bishop opinion. Texas A&M Univ. v. Bishop, 156 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2005). Moreover, allegations of negligent supervision do not satisfy the limited waiver of immunity contained within the act. OPINION:Keyes, J.; Taft, Keyes and Hanks, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.