Mosley v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission
517 S.W.3d 346
Tex. App.2017Background
- DFPS investigated Mosley for neglect after a group-home resident she supervised swallowed batteries; DFPS found "reportable conduct" and forwarded the finding for inclusion on the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR).
- Mosley requested an administrative hearing; HHSC (as DFPS's designee) conducted the hearing and sustained the finding placing Mosley on the EMR.
- Mosley filed a petition for judicial review in district court under Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 48.406; the district court affirmed HHSC and denied agencies' plea to the jurisdiction.
- Agencies (HHSC and DFPS) cross-appealed, arguing Mosley failed to timely file a motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- Mosley argued various exceptions: § 48.406 does not require rehearing; DFPS rules (former 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 711.1431) showed no rehearing requirement; those rules created an agreement fixing finality; and agency misdirection/constitutional due-process defects excused exhaustion.
- The court concluded Mosley did not file a motion for rehearing, rejected her arguments, held the APA’s rehearing requirement applies, and dismissed her suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a motion for rehearing with the agency was a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review of an EMR order | Mosley: § 48.406 does not expressly require a motion for rehearing, so rehearing was not required | Agencies: APA (Subchapter G) requires a timely motion for rehearing in contested cases as a jurisdictional prerequisite | Held: APA rehearing requirement applies; Mosley had to file a timely motion for rehearing |
| Whether DFPS’s former rule (40 Tex. Admin. Code § 711.1431) showing finality upon receipt avoids rehearing requirement | Mosley: Rule reflects agency interpretation that no rehearing required and fixes finality date | Agencies: Agency rules cannot override APA jurisdictional prerequisites; agency cannot waive requirement | Held: Rule does not override APA; agency interpretation not entitled to deference because statute is not ambiguous; rule cannot waive jurisdictional prerequisite |
| Whether Mosley’s participation under DFPS rules constituted a binding agreement fixing finality under Gov’t Code § 2001.144(a)(4) | Mosley: Her written hearing request and DFPS rules created a unilateral agreement fixing finality date (receipt date) | Agencies: No consideration or mutual agreement; unilateral-contract theory inapplicable; statutory exception not met | Held: No enforceable unilateral contract; exception in § 2001.144(a)(4) inapplicable |
| Whether alleged agency misdirection or rule invalidity/ due-process violations excuse failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Mosley: DFPS misdirected her and promulgated an invalid rule, so due-process claims excuse rehearing requirement | Agencies: Constitutional claims do not excuse compliance with statutory jurisdictional prerequisites; agency action cannot estop jurisdictional rules | Held: Constitutional claims do not excuse exhaustion; Mosley remains bound by APA rehearing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsay v. Sterling, 690 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. 1985) (failure to file timely motion for rehearing deprives district court of jurisdiction)
- Railroad Comm’n v. WBD Oil & Gas Co., 104 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2003) (APA limits judicial review; motion for rehearing and exhaustion required)
- Texas Water Comm’n v. Dellarva, 849 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. 1993) (APA exhaustion doctrine applies even when enabling statute is silent)
- Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. Sierra Club, 70 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2002) (agency-specific review provisions are read with APA; APA can impose additional requirements)
- Wilmer-Hutchins Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Sullivan, 51 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2001) (jurisdictional prerequisites cannot be waived by agency action or estoppel)
- Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) (limits on collateral attacks against agency orders)