CEN-TEX CHILDCARE, INC. v. Johnson
339 S.W.3d 734
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Cen-Tex Childcare, Inc. f/k/a Mesa Family Services, Inc. contracts with the Texas Department to provide foster home services.
- A child died after abuse by her foster parents, leading to a wrongful death suit against Cen-Tex and others.
- Plaintiffs allege Cen-Tex failed to report abuse, failed to supervise/train employees, and negligently performed child-placement duties.
- The trial court denied Cen-Tex's motion for summary judgment based on official immunity.
- Cen-Tex sought interlocutory review under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(5).
- The court held Cen-Tex is not an officer or employee of the state, so no interlocutory jurisdiction exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cen-Tex qualifies as an officer or employee under § 51.014(a)(5). | Cen-Tex argues official immunity extends to private contractors performing governmental duties. | The state only permits interlocutory review for individuals who are officers or employees of the state or a political subdivision. | Cen-Tex is not an employee; not entitled to § 51.014(a)(5) review. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order at all given Cen-Tex's status. | Independent contractors performing governmental duties may be eligible for immunity review. | Interlocutory review is limited to state officers or employees; Cen-Tex falls outside this class. | No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Koseoglu v. Texas Southern Univ. Sys., 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (explicit jurisdictional reading of § 51.014(a)(5))
- Tretta v. Titus Regional Med. Ctr., 180 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2005) (interlocutory review context for immunity)
- Guerrero v. Tarrant Cnty. Mortician Servs., 977 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998) (private contractor immunity context)
- Knowles v. City of Granbury, 953 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997) (private contractor immunity; interlocutory context)
- Putthoff v. Ancrum, 934 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996) (treatises on immunity for private contractors)
- Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) (narrow exception to final-judgment rule for certain interlocutory appeals)