University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Bailey
332 S.W.3d 395
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Baileys sued Dr. Albert Sanders for health care liability but did not name the UT Health Science Center (Center) initially.
- Sanders notified the Center’s risk manager of an untoward event and potential claim after Bailey’s April 15, 2004 surgery.
- Limitations for Bailey’s claim expired around June 2006; Sanders moved to dismiss, seeking substitution of the Center under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f).
- Trial court ordered dismissal unless Baileys amended to substitute the Center by Sept. 24, 2006; Baileys amended to substitute the Center.
- Center answered; Baileys argued substitution related back to the original petition; Center argued limitations barred the claim and relation-back does not apply to new parties.
- Appellate court reversed, applying relation-back, but the Texas Supreme Court ultimately held substitution barred by timing and that the claim against the Center was not saved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does relation back save a claim against a substituted governmental defendant after limitations run? | Baileys: relation-back should apply; timely against Center. | Center: relation-back not applicable to new party; limitations bar. | Relation-back does not save the substituted Center claim. |
| Does Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f) require substitution to defeat official-capacity pleading? | Baileys sued Sanders personally; substitution to Center should be timely. | Section 101.106(f) converts suit to official-capacity against employee, enabling substitution. | Under §101.106(f), the suit against Sanders is treated as against the Center, making substitution appropriate. |
| Is the Center precluded from acting as a defendant due to the two-year health care liability limitations period? | Center could be substituted to avoid limitations issues. | Limitations are not tolled by substitution; relation-back cannot extend time. | Limitations not defeated by substitution; the claim against the Center is time-barred. |
| Does the alleged ultra vires or immunity issues affect substitution outcome under §101.106(f)? | Not argued; focus on waiver and substitution. | Immunity concerns govern but do not bar substitution if within the statute. | Substitution falls within official-capacity framework; immunity concerns do not salvage the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (reaffirmed understanding of section 101.106(f) substitution and official-capacity pleading)
- Chilkewitz v. Hyson, 22 S.W.3d 825 (Tex.1999) (limits application of 'other law' to not extend limitations under the act)
- Alexander v. Turtur & Assoc., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 113 (Tex.2004) (purpose of relation-back doctrine in identifying the action for purposes of limitations)
- Phoenix Lumber Co. v. Houston Water Co., 94 Tex. 456 (Tex.1901) (early prohibition on extending limitations via amendments)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex.2009) (governmental immunity limits and official-capacity suit framework)