Texas Health and Human Services Commission Department of State Health Services HHSC Executive Commissioner Charles Smith DSHS Commissioner John Hellerstedt, M.D. And DSHS Hearing Officer Elaine Snow v. Jane Doe
03-16-00657-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Jane Doe requested a certified copy of her Texas birth certificate; the State Registrar received a sworn affidavit from midwife Rosalinda Esquivel (attached to Esquivel’s federal guilty plea) stating she did not attend Doe’s birth and identifying >500 allegedly falsified Texas birth records, including Doe’s.
- Under Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 191.033 and 191.057 and 25 Tex. Admin. Code § 181.21, the State Registrar attached an addendum flagging Doe’s birth record and refused to issue a certified copy; Doe requested a fair hearing under the agency’s fair-hearing procedures (25 T.A.C. §§ 1.51–1.55).
- The hearing officer upheld the refusal and recommended the addendum remain because the department’s evidence (the affidavit and corroborating foreign birth certificate) was not rebutted.
- Doe filed suit in state district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the UDJA and challenged 25 T.A.C. § 181.21(b) as retroactive and procedurally deficient (no defined burden or standard); she sought to enjoin application of the rule and removal of the addendum.
- The trial court denied the State defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction; the State appealed interlocutory under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8), arguing sovereign immunity bars Doe’s claims and that no ultra vires or constitutional violation was pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UDJA waives sovereign immunity for Doe’s challenge to agency rule/application | Doe: UDJA declaratory relief can invalidate § 181.21(b) as retroactive and constitutionally defective | State: UDJA does not create jurisdiction to challenge agency rules or unappealable agency orders; no waiver of immunity | UDJA does not by itself waive sovereign immunity for agency-rule challenges or collateral attacks on final agency orders |
| Whether the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides review of the fair-hearing decision or rule | Doe (later): APA § 2001.038 permits declaratory review of the rule as applied | State: Fair-hearing procedures expressly displace the APA; § 1.51 excludes APA review and the hearing decision is unappealable, so APA waiver is not available/moot | No statutory right to judicial review from these fair-hearing procedures; APA waiver not available here |
| Whether the named officials acted ultra vires (so as to permit suit despite sovereign immunity) | Doe: Officials lacked authority to refuse issuance/remove addendum under § 181.21(b) as applied | State: Statutes §§ 191.033/.057 authorize addenda and refusal; agency interpretation and application were within authority and not unconstitutional | Plaintiff failed to plead/prove that officials acted without legal authority or violated constitutional rights; ultra vires exception not met |
| Whether the agency’s procedures violated due process (burden/standard; retroactivity) | Doe: § 181.21(b) is retroactive and fails to specify burden/standard for fair hearings | State: Fair-hearing rules (25 T.A.C. § 1.54(b)) place burden on the department; hearing record shows department met its burden; claimed errors do not establish a constitutional violation | Alleged procedural/substantive due process defects do not sustain jurisdiction or show a constitutional violation sufficient to overcome immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (standard for pleading jurisdictional facts against governmental immunity)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (UDJA does not itself create subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity defined)
- Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 307 S.W.3d 505 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (UDJA cannot be used to collaterally attack final, unappealable agency orders)
- Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014) (standing/redressability required for APA rule‑validity claims under § 2001.038)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plaintiff bears burden to plead facts establishing subject‑matter jurisdiction)