The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas v. Larry M. Gentilello, M.D.
398 S.W.3d 680
| Tex. | 2013Background
- Gentilello, a UT Southwestern medical center professor, reported concerns to his supervisor about lax supervision of trauma residents at Parkland Hospital, including Medicare/Medicaid compliance issues.
- Gentilello was stripped of his faculty chair positions after making these complaints and subsequently filed a whistleblower suit alleging retaliation for reporting alleged law violations.
- UT Southwestern argued governmental immunity and lack of jurisdiction under the Texas Whistleblower Act, contending there was no objectively reasonable belief that the supervisor had authority as an appropriate law-enforcement authority.
- The trial and intermediate appellate courts addressed whether reporting to a supervisor with internal compliance power could satisfy the Act’s requirement of reporting to an authority that can regulate/enforce or investigate/prosecute law violations.
- The Texas Supreme Court held that the Act’s definition of appropriate law-enforcement authority is narrow and outward-looking, requiring actual regulatory/enforcement power or criminal investigation/prosecution authority over third parties.
- The Court concluded that a supervisor overseeing internal compliance at a medical center does not constitute an appropriate law-enforcement authority under section 554.002(b), so Gentilello’s claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good-faith belief must be objectively reasonable under 554.002 | Gentilello argues belief can be based on supervisor’s internal role. | UTSW contends belief must be objectively reasonable and show outward power to regulate/enforce. | Yes; objective reasonableness required. |
| Whether internal compliance authority can qualify as an appropriate law-enforcement authority | Rege’s internal compliance role could suffice due to Medicare/Medicaid rules. | Internal compliance power alone cannot satisfy 554.002(b). | No; internal compliance authority is insufficient. |
| Whether an employer’s internal anti-retaliation/discipline policy expands coverage | Policy language shows internal commitment to compliance and retaliation protection. | Policy language does not confer law-enforcement powers to internal supervisors. | No expansion; cannot convert internal policy into outward law-enforcement authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002) (limited "appropriate law-enforcement authority" to outward powers; internal discipline not enough)
- Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (email to supervisor not sufficient; must have standalone authority to act externally)
- City of Elsa v. Gonzalez, 325 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. 2010) (open meetings duty not equal to authority to regulate/enforce; no external power)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentilello, 300 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam; initial jurisdictional question on good-faith report)