Austin State Hospital v. Graham
347 S.W.3d 298
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Graham sued Austin State Hospital (a governmental unit) and two doctors (Nuzhath and Lindfors) on health care liability claims.
- Hospital moved to dismiss the doctors under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(e); doctors also moved for dismissal under § 101.106(a) and (e) seeking affirmative relief.
- Graham nonsuited the Hospital, arguing the nonsuit mooted the Hospital's motion to dismiss.
- Trial court denied the doctors' motions and did not rule on the Hospital's dismissal motion.
- Court of Appeals held the Hospital was no longer a party and lacked jurisdiction over the doctors' interlocutory appeal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a).
- Texas Supreme Court granted review and held that a government employee may appeal an interlocutory order denying an assertion of immunity under § 51.014(a)(5), regardless of the procedural vehicle, and remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an interlocutory appeal lies from an order denying dismissal under §101.106(e). | Graham; §51.014(a)(5) limited to summary judgment, so no appeal. | Hospital/Doctors; §51.014(a)(5) covers denial of immunity regardless of vehicle. | Yes; appeal permitted. |
| Effect of nonsuit on the hospital's §101.106(e) dismissal right. | Nonsuit moots the dismissal motion. | Nonsuit cannot defeat right to immediate dismissal. | Nonsuit does not defeat; doctors entitled to immediate dismissal. |
| Whether Graham's Tort Claims Act basis supports §101.106(e) dismissal. | Franke v. Velasquez controls; issue unresolved. | Hosp./Doctors reliance on §101.106(e) is proper. | Supported; Franka controls that suit is under the Act for §101.106. |
| Whether the hospital remained a party and the court had jurisdiction. | Nonsuit negates hospital status on appeal. | Hospital/Doctors have independent dispositive motions. | Court may consider the appeal; jurisdiction is not defeated. |
| Remedial posture: disposition on appeal. | Court should affirm denial of dismissal. | Court should reverse and remand for proper proceedings. | Reverse and remand to court of appeals for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simons v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, 140 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2004) (interlocutory appeal may be taken from denial of jurisdictional challenge)
- Hudak v. Campbell, 232 S.W.3d 930 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007) (appealability under 51.014(a)(5) not limited to summary judgment)
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (activities under Tort Claims Act jurisdictional issues)
- Reedy v. Pompa, 310 S.W.3d 112 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2010) (interlocutory appeal from jurisdictional ruling)
- City of Arlington v. Randall, 301 S.W.3d 896 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009) (interlocutory appeals from government unit actions)
- Leonard v. Glenn, 293 S.W.3d 669 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2009) (interlocutory review of immunity/ jurisdictional rulings)
- Lanphier v. Avis, 244 S.W.3d 596 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008) (precedent on 51.014 applicability to immunity rulings)
- Phillis v. Daufonte, 187 S.W.3d 669 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (precedent on appeals from dismissal-related orders)
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (see above)