Margaret Cannon v. Connie Spence
10-14-00357-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 3, 2015Background
- Margaret L. Cannon (pro se) appealed the trial court’s dismissal of her claims against Connie Spence, an APS supervisor, arising from an Adult Protective Services report that Cannon says defamed her.
- The APS report, submitted by Cannon as an exhibit, was based on complaints by Cannon’s sister alleging physical neglect and mental illness; Cannon contends the report was fabricated to affect inheritance.
- Cannon sued Spence individually rather than naming the governmental employer (Texas Department of Family and Protective Services).
- Spence moved to dismiss, asserting (and the trial court found) that Cannon’s claims arise from conduct within the general scope of Spence’s employment.
- The appellate court reviewed whether Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 101.106(f) required dismissal of Cannon’s TTCA claims against Spence and whether Cannon identified reversible error; Cannon’s briefing lacked adequate legal authority and other briefing formalities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cannon’s TTCA claims against Spence must be dismissed under §101.106(f) when the conduct was within the scope of employment | Cannon argued Spence is responsible for defamatory APS report and should be liable | Spence argued she is a government employee and the alleged conduct falls within her employment, so §101.106(f) requires dismissal of the suit against her individually | Held: Dismissal required under §101.106(f); court affirmed dismissal |
| Whether Cannon demonstrated trial court error in granting the motion to dismiss | Cannon alleged factual and reputational harms but did not show legal error or cite controlling authority | Spence maintained proper statutory basis for dismissal and that Cannon sued the wrong party (individual instead of government unit) | Held: Cannon failed to meet burden to show error; court overruled her sole issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Walker, 435 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2014) (explains that suits against government employees for conduct within scope of employment are essentially suits against the governmental unit and are subject to §101.106(f) dismissal)
- Tex. Adjutant General’s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. 2013) (recognizes application of §101.106(f) when employee is sued for acts within scope of employment)