E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.
03-16-00473-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 28, 2016Background
- E.A., a direct-care staffer at a group home, left her shift and asked an untrained, off‑the‑clock person to cover; during her absence resident R.Z. eloped and R.L. was found tied to his bed.
- HHSC ALJ found E.A. committed neglect and ordered her name placed in the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR).
- E.A. did not file a motion for rehearing before seeking judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and related Human Resources statutes.
- The Department filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing the APA requires a timely motion for rehearing as a prerequisite to suit; the trial court denied the plea and affirmed the agency on the merits.
- The Department appeals, arguing the district court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because the agency order was not appealable without a timely motion for rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the APA's contested‑case and judicial‑review procedures (including a motion for rehearing) apply to EMR orders | E.A. proceeded directly to district court without a rehearing; she implicitly treats the rule on finality as controlling | The Human Resources Code incorporates APA procedures; a motion for rehearing is required before judicial review | APA procedures apply; motion for rehearing is required |
| Whether a timely motion for rehearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review of the EMR order | E.A. did not file one and sought immediate review | Because no motion was filed the agency order is final but not appealable under APA §2001.145; lacking appealability, district court lacked jurisdiction | Failure to file rehearing deprives court of jurisdiction; appeal not allowed |
| Whether 40 TAC §711.1431(b) (order final upon employee receipt) displaces the APA rehearing requirement | E.A. relied on the agency rule's finality-by-receipt language to justify skipping rehearing | The rule affects when an order is final but cannot waive a statutory (jurisdictional) prerequisite to suit; agency rules cannot override statute or sovereign‑immunity prerequisites | Rule governs finality timing but cannot relieve statutory rehearing prerequisite; statute controls |
| Whether agency action or estoppel can cure the jurisdictional defect | E.A. argued procedural irregularities/agency conduct justified proceeding | Jurisdictional prerequisites cannot be waived by the agency or cured by estoppel; exhaustion is required for judicial review | Agency action/estoppel cannot confer jurisdiction; exhaustion and rehearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard of review for jurisdictional plea is de novo)
- Lindsay v. Sterling, 690 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. 1985) (timely motion for rehearing is jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal)
- Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT‑Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (agencies exercise only powers conferred by the Legislature)
- Wilmer‑Hutchins Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Sullivan, 51 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2001) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal and cannot be cured by party conduct)
- State Office of Pub. Util. Council v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 131 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (administrative rules that contravene statute are invalid)