University of North Texas Health Science Center v. Jessica Jimenez, Jennifer Galo, Catherine Frank, in Their Individual Capacities, and William Tyler II, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Pamela J. Knight
02-16-00368-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Pamela Knight underwent an esophageal myotomy on Dec. 11, 2012 performed by Dr. Albert Yurvati; she later developed worsening respiratory problems and infections and died in May 2013.
- A Dec. 19 esophagram showed an esophageal leak; on Dec. 20 Dr. Yurvati performed a thoracotomy and recorded a linear 5 cm tear/perforation and a "repair of esophageal perforation" in UNT Health records and an FMLA certification.
- Appellees (Knight’s estate and family) sued UNT Health and Plaza Medical for medical negligence in Nov. 2014; they did not provide formal written notice to UNT Health within six months of the Dec. 11, 2012 incident.
- UNT Health moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the Texas Tort Claims Act’s six‑month notice requirement was unmet and that UNT Health lacked "actual notice" under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101(c).
- The trial court denied UNT Health’s motion; the court of appeals reviewed de novo whether UNT Health had actual notice within the six‑month period based on medical records and any imputed knowledge from Dr. Yurvati.
- The court concluded UNT Health’s records and the evidence did not show subjective awareness that UNT Health was at fault or that Dr. Yurvati’s knowledge should be imputed to UNT Health; it reversed and rendered dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UNT Health had "actual notice" under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101(c) within six months | Medical records (operative report, notes, FMLA cert.) explicitly reference an esophageal perforation and repair, which put UNT Health on notice of injury and its possible causal connection to surgery | References to a perforation in records do not show subjective awareness that UNT Health (or its agents) were at fault; treating physician knowledge isn't automatically imputed to the governmental entity | Held: No actual notice. Records alone did not evidence subjective awareness of governmental fault; imputation of Dr. Yurvati’s knowledge was not supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (subject‑matter jurisdiction may be challenged by plea to the jurisdiction)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (when jurisdictional facts are disputed, court may consider evidence to resolve jurisdictional issues)
- Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2004) (actual notice requires more than knowledge an injury occurred; must include awareness of possible governmental fault)
- Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (actual notice requires knowledge of injury, subjective awareness of fault, and identification of injured party)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Estate of Arancibia, 324 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. 2010) (supervisory physician’s communications can demonstrate subjective awareness of fault and support imputation of notice)
- McQueen v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Houston, 431 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (medical‑record references to an intraoperative injury did not necessarily establish subjective awareness of institutional fault)
- Dinh v. Harris Cty. Hosp. Dist., 896 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ dism’d w.o.j.) (medical records may create a fact issue on actual notice only if they indicate possible culpability by the hospital)
- Reynosa v. Bexar Cty. Hosp. Dist., 943 S.W.2d 74 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, writ denied) (medical records reflecting injuries alone insufficient to establish actual notice)