Texas Tech University Health Science Center v. Williams
344 S.W.3d 508
Tex. App.2011Background
- TTUHSC appeals after trial court denied motion to dismiss Williams' suit under Texas Tort Claims Act 101.106 based on failure to timely substitute TTUHSC as defendant.
- Dr. Pirela-Cruz, TTUHSC employee, moved to dismiss under 101.106(f); Williams had sued the physician and others but not TTUHSC.
- Removal to federal court occurred; federal court substituted the United States for some defendants and kept Williams' suit alive.
- Williams later sought to amend in federal court to name TTUHSC as sole defendant; remand occurred with Williams' state-law claims against TTUHSC remaining.
- After remand, Williams filed a Second Amended Complaint naming TTUHSC as the sole defendant; TTUHSC asserted sovereign immunity and filed a 101.106-based dismissal motion, which the trial court denied.
- The appellate court sustained TTUHSC’s 101.106-based challenges and reversed to dismiss the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams timely complied with 101.106(f) to substitute TTUHSC for the employee. | Williams contends delay was caused by federal removal and US Attorney cooperation; not timely. | Timely amendment required within 30 days of employee's 101.106(f) motion; delay not justified. | Issue One sustained; timing not satisfied; immunity remains. |
| Whether the attempted extension of the 30-day period by agreement cured untimely filing. | Agreement with attorney extended time to amend under 101.106(f). | Statutory deadline cannot be extended by agreement; timely filing required. | Issue Two sustained; extension invalid; untimely amendment does not cure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (immunity and jurisdictional questions govern subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex.2004) (interlocutory appeal allowed from denial of immunity-based plea to jurisdiction)
- San Antonio State Hospital v. Cowan, 128 S.W.3d 244 (Tex.2004) (interplay of immunity waivers and procedural vehicles for review)
- Webber-Eells (University of Texas Health Sci. Ctr. at San Antonio), 327 S.W.3d 233 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2010) (101.106 as a jurisdictional waiver; extension of time for amendment not allowed)
- Briggs v. Briggs, 262 S.W.3d 390 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008) (timely substitution required within 30 days; extension not permitted)
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex.2011) (immunity defense; public officials' immunity during litigation remains under 101.106)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex.2008) (framework for deciding whether the governmental unit or employee is liable under 101.106)
- Webber-Eells (again), 327 S.W.3d 233 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2010) (continuing discussion of 101.106 b/f and substitution timing)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex.2009) (statutory interpretation guiding contract and regulatory waivers)
- City of Waco v. Kelley, 309 S.W.3d 536 (Tex.2010) (statutory construction guiding governmental immunity waivers)