Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) and Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Health and Hospital System, d/b/a Parkland Memorial Hospital (Parkland) appeal the trial court’s order denying their pleas to the jurisdiction in a suit filed against them by the estate of Irene Esther Arancibia by its beneficiary Victor Hugo Vasquez-Arancibia, Victor Hugo Arancibia, individually, and Cecillia Vasquez-Arancibia. On Aug. 3, 2004, the Arancibias sued David Curtis, M.D., Franklin Yau, M.D., and Mark Watson, M.D., alleging medical negligence with regard to the death of Irene Arancibia. Irene Arancibia died on Sept. 7, 2003. Curtis, Yau and Watson filed answers generally denying the allegations. On Oct. 7, 2004, Curtis and Yau filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �101.106(f). On Jan. 20, 2005, Watson filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to �101.106(f). On Nov. 2, 2004, counsel for Curtis, Yau and Watson and counsel for the Arancibias executed a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 agreement. The Rule 11 agreement: 1. extended the 30-day time period under �101.106(f) until Jan. 31, 2005, so the Arancibias could amend their pleadings to dismiss Curtis, Yau and Watson; 2. permitted the parties a reasonable time to conduct discovery and provided a discovery schedule concerning the motions for dismissal that had been filed; and 3. provided that Curtis, Yau and Watson waived any right to assert a dismissal of the Arancibias’ claims under �101.106(f) if the Arancibias filed amended pleadings dismissing their claims against the physicians by Jan. 31, 2005. On Jan. 28, 2005, the Arancibias filed their first amended petition dismissing their claims against Curtis, Yau and Watson and asserting claims against UTSW and Parkland. On Oct. 3, 2005, UTSW and Parkland filed their pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity. On April 10, 2007, after a hearing, the trial court denied UTSW’s and Parkland’s pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to dismiss. This interlocutory appeal followed. HOLDING:Affirmed. In their pleas to the jurisdiction, UTSW and Parkland focused on their assertion that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, because the 2005 amendment to �311.034 established that notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, and the Arancibias failed to plead or provide evidence showing he provided timely notice. The record shows the Arancibias filed their first amended petition against UTSW and Parkland on Jan. 28, 2005. The petition was filed before Sept. 1, 2005, the effective date of the amendment to �311.034. The Arancibias’ failure to provide notice did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. OPINION:Lang, J.; Moseley, Lang and Mazzant, 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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.