NO. 07-07 -004 9-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 27, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ EVELY N CLA RK , R .N ., RO SEAN NE R OD RI GU EZ, M HS ,

and EL IZABETH OR TIZ, MA S Appel lan ts

v. CY NTH IA S ELL, on beha lf of MI TCH ELL RAY SELL , Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 72 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; ND NO. 200 6-53 6,0 95; HON. RU BEN GONZAL ES REYES, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Ev ely n C lar k, Ros eanne R odr ig uez , and El iz abeth Or ti z( the n u rse s) app eal from an order deny ing thei r moti on to di smi ss . Their moti on w as founded upon §101.10 6( f) of the Te x as Civ il Practice and Reme dies Co de. And, in it, the y alleged tha t the y

w ere g ov er nmental empl oy ees, the cl aims ass erted ag ain st them by C y nthi a Sel l (o n behal f of Mi tch ell Sel l)i nv olv ed condu ct pur por ti ng to oc cur

w it hin the sc ope of thei r employ ment, and their em ployer ( Sun rise Canyon Hospital) w as a gov er nm ent al ent ity suscep tible to suit2

und er chap ter 101 of

t he Civ il Pract ice and Reme dies Cod e. Giv en th ose circum stan ces, the t ri al cour

t was all eg edl y

obl ig ated to dism iss t h e s u iti f Sell fail ed to amend h er plea dings to drop them w hile ad ding Sunrise Can y on a s t h e d efend ant . Th e trial court ov er ru led the moti on. W e aff ir m it s d eci si on. Back ground Acc ordin g to the o ri g ina l peti ti on, M it che ll S ell w as a resi dent of Sunr is e C any on. W hil e the re , he pur por

tedl y re cei v ed medic ati on th at c aused hi m to fal l int o a d eep s lee p. As he sl ept, he lay on his ar m for an extended per iod of ti me. D ur ing thi s t ime, the nurses failed to move or mon it o r h im , w hich om ission resulte d in injuryto his arm. The reafter, Cy nthi a s ued Cla rk , R odr ig uez , and Or ti z , among othe rs . Upo n j oin ing i ss ue, t he th re e nurses fil ed th e prev iou sl y menti oned mot ion to dis mis s. The tr ial co urt denied it ; s o, t hey appeal ed. St and ard o f Rev iew W hether the t ri al cour

t er re d depen ds upon w hether i t abu sed it s d is creti on. See W il li am s v . Nealon , 199 S.W .3d 4 62, 4 64 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 D is t.] 2006, pet. filed ) st (app ly ing the stand ard of abu sed d iscretion to mot ions to dismiss); B owers v. Matula , 943 S.W .2d 5 36, 5 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 1997, no w ri t) ( appl y ing the sta ndard of abuse d di sc re ti on)
. It abuse s its disc re ti on w hen the decis ion fail s t o c omport w it h g uid ing ru les and pr inc ipl es or

i s a rb it ra ry

and unreason abl e. W il li am s v . Nealon , 199 S.W .3d a t 464; Mi ller v. Gann , 8 2 2 S.W .2d 283 , 286 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 91, w rit deni ed)
. Fi nal ly , t he s cope of rev iew i s li mite d to t hose arg uments rais ed i n the moti on to dis mis s. W

il li am s v . Nealon , 199 S.W .3d a t 464 -6 5.3

Ap pl icat io n of St and ard P e r § 1 0 1
. 1 0 6 ( f) If a su iti s f ile d ag ain st an empl oy ee of a g ov er nmental uni t bas ed on cond uct w ithi n t he gene ral scope o f thatemp loyee's emp loymentand if it coul d hav e been broug ht un der thi s c hapter

agai nstthe g ov er nmental uni t, the s uiti s cons ide re d to be ag ain st the e mploy ee i n the empl oy ee's off ic ial capa city only. On th e em ployee's mo tion, the suit a gainst the em ployee sha ll be di smi ss ed unl ess the pla int iff f il es a m e n d e d pl eadi ng s d is mis si ng the employ ee and naming the g ov er nmental uni t as defendant on or before the 30th day after the date the mot ion i s fil ed. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . §101.10 6( f) (V er non 2005)
. Gi v en th e wordin g of that sta tute, dis mis sal is w ar ra nted onl y if the mov ant is an employ ee of a g ov er nmental uni t, the c onduct i nv olv ed oc curred w it hin the g eneral sc ope of thatempl oy ee’ s e mploy ment, and t he sui t coul d hav e been broug ht ag ain st the g ov er nmental uni t or enti ty
. Phillips v. DaF onte , 187 S.W .3d 6 69, 6 75 ( Tex . App.–H oust on [14 Dis t.] 2006, no pet.)
. Ass uming th ar guendothatthe firs t tw o c ondi ti ons w ere met, w e c oncl ude t hat t he th ird w as not. Uni ts of the s tate g ov er nment enjoy so v ereig n i mmunity

from s uitunl ess i t i s waiv ed by st atute
. Tex

as Dep t. Par

ks & Wildli fe v . M ir anda , 133 S.W .3d 217 , 224 -25 (Te x . 200 4). Pert h e T o rtC la ims Act, that immuni ty i s l osti n three w ay s, id. at 225, that is , w hen t he injury c o m pla ine d of ar is es 1) from t he us e of g ov er nment v ehi cl es, 2) from premis es defects , or 3) from the use of or condit ion s rela ti ng to re alty or tang ibl e personal ty
. T EX . C IV . P R AC . R EM . C OD E A NN . § 1 0 1 .0 21- .022 (V er non 200 5) ; Tex as Dep t. Par

ks & Wildli fe v. M ir anda , 1 3 3 S
. W
. 3 d a t2 2 5
. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i ti s n o te n o u g h t h a ta v e h i c l e , p re mi s es defect, o r piece of

prope rty simply be inv olved in som e w ay; rathe r, one or the o the r must be a prox imat e caus e of the unde rl y ing i nju ry . Dal las C o. M HM R v. Bossley, 968 S.W .2dT he t hr ee n ur ses do asser t f or t he f i r st t i m e on appea l t hat t angi bl e pe r sonal t y was i nv ol v ed b ecause 1 M i t chel l m ayhav e been gi v en a n ov er dose ofdr ugs. Y et , we f i nd n o al l egat i on b y C y nt hi a t hat t he m edi cat i on he r ecei v ed was excessi v e or i m pr oper l y adm i ni st er ed. N or do we f i nd a nyal l egat i on wher ei n she pur por t ed to c o m p l a i n a b o u t a n y i m p ro p e r e ff e c t o f t h e m e d ic a tio n . H e r c o m p l a i n ts s i m p l y e n c o m p a s s th e fa i l u re to pr oper l y m oni t or , assess, or m ov e M i t chel l gi v en t he f act ofhi s m edi cat i on. T hus, t he ar gum ent about dr ugs b e i n g a c a u s e o f h i s i n ju ry, fo r p u rp o s e s o f w a i v i n g i m m u n i ty , l a c k s fo u n d a ti o n . 4 339, 343 ( Tex .1998)( sta ti ng thatt h e proper ty mustprox imat ely

ca use the i nju ry

for imm unity to be w aived). Here, C y nt hi a s ue d to rec ov er da ma g es for i nj ur y to M i tc he l l ’ s ar m. Tha t injury all eg edl y oc cur re d bec ause the t hree nurses i n q uest ion di d not“ arouse, ” “ful ly as ses s,” or “periodically turn” Mitchell. In oth er words, th ey supp osed ly neglected to perform ce rtain medic al ser

v ic es, and that neg lect resul ted i n hi s i nju ri es. G iven the nature of her all eg ati ons, w e s ee no nex us betw een t he i nju ri es in dis pute and a premis es defect, motor v ehi cl e, or

co ndi ti on or u se of proper ty as req uired i n Bossley
. N or are w e c it ed to any 1 ev ide nce of rec ord fil li ng the v oid
. Thus, w e c annot say that the appel lat e record s uppor ts the co ncl usi on th at s uit“ coul d hav e been broug ht” ag ain st Sunr is e C any on, a nd th e re q uirements of §101.10 6( f) w ent u nsat is fied atbar
. W e do not ig nore the nurses ’ cont enti on th at t he s tatut or y phrase “c oul d hav e been brou g ht ” s i mp l y

me an t th at th e en ti ty c ou l d ha v e be en s ue d, i r res pe c ti v e of th e ou tc om e or i mmunity . By re qui ring thatthe sui t “ coul d hav e been broug ht” ag ain st the e nti ty , t he leg is lat ure must hav e req uired more tha n a p lai nti ff bei ng abl e to si mply

ty pe th e name o f s o m e e n t it y o r p e rs o n in t o t h e o ri gi n a l p e t it io n . If t h e l a tt e r wa s a ll t h a twa s n e c e s s a ry, then there woul d be no need for t he c ondi ti on s inc e i t coul d nev er go unsat is fied; in other w ords, because any

and ev er

y one i s s ubj ectto bei ng named a s a par ty i n any par ti cul ar s u itt h e re wo u ld b e n o n e e d t o s p e c ify t h a ta s a co n d it io n o f d is m is s a l. So , we o p tt o gi ve5

subs tanc e to the l eg is lat ure’s words and c onst ru e them to re q uire a pot enti al for l eg it imat e li abi li ty . That is, the c omplai nt mus t, at t he v er y min imum, all eg e a c ause of acti on hav ing a l awful pot enti al for ex posi ng the defendant t o l iab il ity . And , that canno t hap pen w hen uni ts of the s tate g ov er nment are sued g iv en th eir so v ereig n i mmunity , unl ess of course, an ex cept ion to that immuni ty appl ies
. Acc ordin g ly , w e hol d tha t t he record before i t prov ide d the tr ial cour t bas is for i ts ru li n g. T h u s , itd id n o ta b u s e it s d is c re t io n in o ve rr u li n g t h e m o t i o n t o d is m is s , a n d we aff ir m thatdec is ion
. Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice