Rusk State Hospital v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88

Blacks sued Rusk State Hospital for health care liability after Travis Black died at the Hospital; allegations included dangerous premises, inadequate training, and deliberate indifference.
Hospital challenged the Blacks’ expert reports under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.351 and sought dismissal; trial court denied the motion.
Hospital appealed, for the first time raising sovereign immunity; court of appeals remanded, and Hospital sought review in this Court.
This Court held that immunity from suit implicates subject-matter jurisdiction and addressed the merits of the immunity claim, then remanded for jurisdictional resolution.
On jurisdictional review, the Court remanded to trial court for further proceedings because pleadings/record did not conclusively show waiver or non-waiver of immunity, and full opportunity to develop the record could affect immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether immunity from suit may be raised on interlocutory appeal	Black(s) contend immunity requires trial‑court ruling first	Rusk argues immunity can be raised on appeal as jurisdictional	Immunity may be addressed at the interlocutory stage
Whether the TTCA immunities were waived for Plaintiffs’ claims	Plaintiffs' pleadings allege use/condition of property leading to death	Hospital argues pleadings fail to show TTCA waiver or that conduct was a ‘use’ or a proximately causing condition	The pleadings, even read in plaintiffs’ favor, do not show a TTCA waiver
Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the claims	Pleadings show potential waiver under TTCA	Immunity negates jurisdiction; trial court lacked jurisdiction	Waiver not conclusively shown; jurisdiction not conclusively lacking
What is the proper disposition given unresolved immunity issue on remand	Remand for record development to cure jurisdictional defects	If immunity not shown, proceed; if shown, dismiss	Remand to allow full development of jurisdictional record and potential amendment

Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex.2001) (interlocutory appeal statute strict construction)
Waco Independent School Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.2000) (sovereign immunity can be raised on appeal; subject matter jurisdiction essential)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351 (Tex.2004) (court must determine jurisdiction regardless of preservation)
Koseoglu v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex.2007) (specifics of rapid appellate review under §51.014)
Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex.2006) (sovereign immunity includes personal and subject-matter aspects; waivers exist)
Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821 (Tex.2000) (no advisory opinions; jurisdictional concerns)