X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Francisco Hernandez was treated by doctors affiliated with Baylor College of Medicine from Aug. 19, 2001, through Sept. 12, 2001, for a work-related injury to his right leg. He died on Sept. 21, 2001, and on May 30, 2003, Maria Hernandez brought suit against Baylor and treating physicians Fareed Khan, Nageeb Abdalla, Haleema Latifi and Francis Joseph Welsh (collectively, the physicians) on behalf of Francisco’s estate and survivors. Baylor and the physicians filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment asserting 1. immunity from suit due to Maria’s alleged failure to provide Baylor and the physicians notice of the claims pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �101.101(a), and 2. immunity from liability pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code �312.006(a). The trial court denied both motions, and this appeal ensued. HOLDING:Dismissed. Baylor and the physicians based both their motion to dismiss and their motion for summary judgment in part on Maria’s alleged failure to notify them of her claims pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �101.101. Baylor and the physicians contend they are “governmental units” and argue that Maria’s alleged failure to comply with this statute bars her suit. The failure to give notice of a claim as required by �101.101 does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction over an action on the claim. The court finds that it may not consider the interlocutory appeal of appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction on this basis. The plain language of neither Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �101.023(a) nor Texas Health & Safety Code �312.006(a) purports to grant immunity from suit to a supported medical school or to its residents, faculty or employees. The court reads �312.006(a) as simply importing the damages caps of �101.023(a). Because �312.006(a) does not prevent suit, it cannot deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and the rulings on the plea to the jurisdiction based on this section are not subject to an interlocutory appeal. Baylor and the physicians appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civil Practice & Remedies Code �51.014(a)(5). Appellants do not claim official immunity, nor do appellants allege or offer evidence that any physician’s treatment of Francisco constituted the good faith performance of an official’s discretionary duties within the scope of his authority � the essential elements of official immunity. Instead, appellants claim they are “statutorily immune from liability” under Texas Health & Safety Code �312.006(a) and Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �101.101. These are the same damages cap and notice provisions on which appellants based their plea to the jurisdiction. Neither statute confers immunity. Moreover, neither statute applies to individuals. OPINION:Guzman, J.; Hedges, C.J., Yates and Guzman, J.J.

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.