### NUM BER 13-06- 0040 5-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
JOE GUA DA LU PE B A LL EST ERO S, A pp ellan t,
v . NU ECE S C OUN TY , T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 47t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## OPI NI ON ON REHE A RI NG B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , B en av id es a n d V el a Opin ion On R eh earin g by Ju stice B en av ide s W e grantapp ellant 's mot ion for rehea ring, deny his mo tion for rehea ring en b anc,
v acat e and w it hdraw

our opi nio n dated Aug ust31, 2007, and i ss ue th is opi nio n on re hear ing i n i ts pla ce. O n Ma rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , a p p e ll a n t , J o e G u a d a lu p e B a ll e s t e ro s , su e d Nu e c e s Co u n t y,Because we sust ai n Bal l est er os’ s f i r st t wo i ssues, we do n ot add r ess t he a ddi t i onal i ssues h e r ai ses 1 o n a p p e a l. 2 Tex as, under

se cti on 451. 001 of the lab or co de. See T EX . L AB . C O D E A NN . § 451.001 (Verno n 20 06) (prohib iting the f iring of an em p lo ye e f o r, amo ng othe r things, filing “a
w or ker ’s c o mp e n s a t i o n c l a i m i n g o o d fa i t h ” )

. N u e c e s C o u n t y fi l e d a “ P l e a t o the Jur is dic ti on and Mo ti on to D is mis s,” arg uin g thatBal les teros faile d to compl y w it h s ect ion 89.0041 of t he loc al g ov er nment c ode. See T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89.0041 ( Ver non 2008)

. The tr ial co urt g ra nted the p lea and the mot ion , findi ng them “me rit o rio us, ” and dism issed Ba llesteros’s suit. On a ppe al, Ballest eros argues tha t th e t rial court erred in dis mis si ng hi s sui t becau se (1 ) sec ti on 89.0041 is not j ur is dic ti onal , and ( 2) he c ompli ed
w it h s ect ion 89.0 041 of the loc al g ov er nment c ode. W e rev erse and remand. 1 I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On J anuar

y 16, 2003, w hil e a capt ain in the N ueces C ounty Sher iff’s D epar

tment, Bal les teros suffered an on- the- job i nju ry and filed a w or ker ’s co mpensat ion clai m. Due to thi s i nju ry , Ba ll est eros mis sed w or k for an e xtended per iod of ti me. On Nov ember 12, 20 03 , Ba l l es te ros ’ s h ea l th c are prov i de r rel ea s ed h i m t o r et ur n to w or ko n a pa rt-time basi s. N ueces C ounty deni ed Bal les teros the o ppor tuni ty to re tur n to w or k, and on Nov ember

14, Sher iff Larr

y Ol iv ar ezter minat ed Bal les teros’ s e mploy ment. Upo n hi s t er minat ion , Ba ll est eros f iled an empl oy ment g ri ev ance w it h N ueces Cou nty co ntes ti ng the ter minat ion

. On De cember 17 , 200 3, t he N ueces C ounty Com mission ers’ Court conside red Ba llesteros’s gri evance an d referred the g riev ance back to t he s her iff’s d epar

tment for di spos it ion

. T h e s her iff’s d epar tment did not re ins tate Bal les teros’ s e mploy ment.3

On J anuar

y 18, 2005, Bal les teros sued Nue ces Co u nty i n federa l dis tr ic t c our t,
ass erti ng v iol ati ons of the C onst it uti on, 4 2 U .S.C . Se cti on 1983 , Ti tl e VI I of the Ci v il R ig hts Act , and the Tex as Labor C ode. See U .S. C ONS
. a me n d s. V, X IV; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2000e- 2; T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 451 .00 1. L itigation cont inue d in the fede ral district court for more tha n a y ear

w hil e the par

ti es filed respon si v e pl eadi ng s and moti ons. The federal district court’s docke t shee t for t he case ref lects tha t bet w een Nueces Cou nty, Ballestero s, and t he c our

t, approx imat ely

si xty doc ketentr ies w er e g enerated. On Mar ch 8, 20 0 6 , t h e fe d e ra l d ist ric t c o u rth e ld a he a rin g du rin g w h ich th e ju d ge dis cus sed dis mis sal w it h the par ti es. U lt imat ely , upo n the par ti es’ ag re eme n t to end dis cov er y and to proceed i n s tate cour t onl y on the lab or

co de s ect ion 451. 001 c lai m, the
cour t di smi ss ed th e c ase w it hout pr eju dic e s o tha t Ba ll est eros coul d f il e his act ion i n s tate
cour t. On M ar ch 21, 2 006, Bal les teros filed the pr esent act ion in sta te di str ic t c our t. On Ma rc h 22, 2006, Bal les teros fax ed a copy of his or ig ina l peti ti on to the Nu e ces C ounty Atto rn ey ’s Office. On Ma rc h 29, 2006, by private proces s s er

v er , Ba ll est eros ser

v ed a copy of his ori g ina l peti ti on on Nue ces C ounty Ju dg e Ter ry

Shams ie. O n Apr il 21, 2006, Nue ces C ounty

ans w er ed and filed a pl ea to the jur is dic ti on and moti on to di smi ss . In its p le a a nd m otion , Nuece s Count y asserted thatBalleste ros failed to comp ly
w ith sectio n 89 .00 41 o f the loca l g overnm e n t c o d e a n d argued tha t this failure is a jur is dic ti onal defect ro bbi ng the sta te di str ic t c our t of j ur is dic ti on unde r sec ti on 311. 034 of the g ov er nment c ode. See T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89.0041 ; T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311. 034 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. On J uly 7, 2006, the dis tr ic t cour t granted the plea and moti on and dis mis sed Bal les teros’ s c lai m. B all est eros appeal ed.4 II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW A pl ea to the jur is dic ti on seek s to defeat a c ause of acti on w it hout cons ide ri ng the meri ts of the c lai m. See D all as Cou nty

v. C osk ey , 247 S.W .3d 753, 754 (Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2 0 0 8 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Bl and Indep. Sch. D is t. v B lue , 34 S.W .3d 547 , 554 (Tex. 2000 )). W hether a cour

t has subj ect -mat ter jur is dic ti on is a q uest ion of l aw ; therefore, w e rev iew
a c our t’ s r uli ng on a plea t o t h e j u risdic ti on de nov o. Id. (cit in g Tex. Dep’ t of Pa rks & W ildli fe v . M ir anda , 133 S.W .3d 217 , 226 (Tex. 2004 )).

III . D I S CUS S I ON Bal les teros’ s a ppel lat e i ss ues re q uire us to deci de w hether se cti on 89. 0041 of the loc al g ov er nment c ode i s j ur is dic ti onal a n d, i f not, w hether su bst anti al compl ian ce w it h
sec ti o n 8 9.0041' s req uirements i s s uff ic ien t t o w it hst and a moti on to di smi ss . See T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89. 004 1. Sect ion 89 .00 41(a ) prov ides th at “[a] p erson f iling suit ag ain st a county or ag ain st a county off ic ial in the off ic ial 's capac it y as a co u n ty off icial shal l del iv er w ri tten noti ce to: ( 1) the county j udg e; an d ( 2) the county or di str ic t at tor ney having jurisdiction to def end the coun ty in a civ il suit.” Id. a t 89. 004 1(a). Such “notice m ust be del iv er ed by

ce rt ified or

reg is tered mail by

the 30th busi ness dayafter suitis f il ed .

. . .” Id. at 89. 004 1(b). “If

a person doe s not giv e not ice as required by this section , the court in w hic h the su iti s p endi ng sh all di smi ss the sui t on a moti on for d ism iss a l m a d e bythe
coun ty or the coun ty of f icial.” Id. at 89.0041 (c ). Bal les teros ass erts thatsecti on 89. 0041 is not jur is dic ti onal and that he c ompli ed w it h the st atute

. W e ag re e. A . Is S ect io n 89.0041 Ju risd ict io nal ? In its plea to the ju risdiction, Nuece s Co unt y a rg ued thatBalleste ros failed to comp ly5

w it h secti on 89.0041 of the loc al g ov er nment code and that his fail ur e to do s o reli ev ed th e tr ial co urt of j ur is dic ti on u n d e r se ct ion 311. 034 of the g ov er nment c ode. See T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89.0041 ; T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311. 034. Sec ti on 311. 034 prov ide s that “[ s]t atuto ry

prer eq uis it es to a sui t, inc lud ing the prov is ion of noti ce, are j ur is dic ti onal requireme nts in all su its against a gov ernm ent al ent ity .” T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311.034

. To deter mine w hether

se cti on 89. 0041 i s j ur is dic ti onal , w e mustcon str ue th e rele v ant statu tes. Our pr imar y g oal i n i nter pr eti ng st atute s i s t o det er mine a n d e f f e ctuate t he leg is lat ur e’s i ntenti n pro m u lga ti n g the st atute

. Cos key, 2 4 7 S. W .3 d at75 5 (cit in g In re Can ale s , 52 S. W .3d 698 , 701 (Tex. 2001 )). W e a s s u m e the legislature m ean s w hatit
sa ys , s o w e beg in our

i nter pr etati on w it h the pl ain l ang uag e of the sta tute. Id. “ [T]he statu te’s w ords sho uld be the sure st guide to th e legislature’s inten t.” Id. (cit in g Fitz gera ld v. Adva nced

Spine Fixation Sys., Inc. , 996 S.W .2d 864 , 865 -66 (Te x . 199 9)). As the Dal las Cour

t of Appeals recog niz ed, the quo ted port ion of se cti on 311. 034 “add resses provisions of notice thatare ‘statu tory prerequisites to a suit.’” Id. (quo ti n g T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311 .03 4). “A prerequisite i s ‘som eth ing tha t is required beforeh and .’” Dal las C ounty v. H ughes , 189 S.W .3d 8 86, 8 88 ( Tex. Ap p .–D all as 2006, pet. deni ed) (qu o ti n g W EBST ER ’ S T HI RD I N T ER N AT I O N AL D I C T I O N A R Y 1791 ( 1981) ; see Cou nty of Bexa r
v. Br uton , 256 S.W .3d 345, 348 (Tex

. App.–S an Antoni o 2008, no pet.)

. W hile se ct ion 311.034 address es noti ce prov is ion s t hat a re “ sta tutor y prer eq uis it es to a sui t,” se cti on 89.0041 's w ri tten noti ce req uirement i s a pos t- sui t not ic e prov is ion

. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 31 1.034; T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89.0041 (b ) ; C osk ey , 247 S.W .3d a t 755

.6

Sect ion 89.0 041 requi re s th a t w ri tten noti ce must be del iv er ed to ce rt ain par ti es “b y c e rt if ie d o r r e gi s t e re d m a il b y t h e 3 0 t h b u s i n e s s d a y afte r suit is filed .” T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89.0041 (b ) (e mphasi s added)

. By it s pla in lan g uag e, sec ti on 311. 034 app li es to ac ti ons that must be ta ken before a l aw sui t i s fil ed; t her efore, itdoes notappl y to sec ti on 89.0041 because sec ti on 89.0041 req uires noti ce onl y after su iti s fil ed. See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311.034 ; T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89.0041 (b ) ; C osk ey , 247 S.W .3d a t 755. Ac cordin g ly , w e hol d tha t s ect ion 311. 0 3 4 d o e s not mak e c ompli ance w it h s ect ion 89.0041 j ur is dic ti onal

. Cos key, 247 S.W .3d a t 755

. B. Is Substa ntial Complianc e w ith Section 89. 004 1 Sufficie nt? Hav ing hel d tha t c ompli ance w it h sec ti on 89.0041 is not jur is dic ti onal , w e mustnow cons ide r w hether

su bst anti al compl ian ce w it h s ect ion 89.0041 i s s uff ic ien t t o w it hst and a moti on to di smi ss broug ht un der se cti on 89. 0041( c)

. See T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89.0041 (c ). I n Cos key , th e D a llas C our t of Appea ls ans w er ed th is q uest ion i n the aff ir mati v e. 247 S. W .3d a t 757

. In t hat c ase, C osk ey

su ed Dal las County

for w ro ng ful termi nati on prohi bit ed bythe “W histleb low er Act.” See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . §§ 554. 001- .010 (V er non 200 4) ; Cos key, 247 S. W .3d a t 754

. W it hin thi rty day s of fil ing sui t, the follo w ing it ems w er e del iv er ed to the c ounty

ju d ge: ( 1) a c it ati on, ( 2) C osk ey ’s or ig ina l peti ti on and re q uestfor d is cl osure, a n d ( 3 ) e x hib it s. Cos key, 247 S.W .3d a t 754

. Al so, w it hin thi rty day s o f f il ing su it , Cosk e y’s co u nsel se nt a let ter to a D all as Cou nty

as si sta nt di str ic t at tor ney req uest ing dates for d eposi ti ons and a firs t req uestfor p ro duct ion

. Id. Dallas Coun ty answered w ithin tw ent y days of th e suit be ing f iled, and on the sam e day it answered, it serv ed a request7

for di sc los ur e. Id. Dallas C oun t y f iled a plea to the jurisdiction an d mo tion to dismiss
arg uin g thatbec ause ithad not rec eiv ed a cer ti fied or reg is tered l etter w it hin thi rty

day s o f Cos key ’s fil ing su itas req uired byse cti on 89. 0041( b) , t he tr ial co urt l ack ed j ur is dic ti on. Id. The tr ial co urt den ied D all as Cou nty ’s pl ea and moti on. Id. On ap peal , t he D all as Cou rtof Appeal s h eld thatse cti on 89.0 0 4 1 i s n ot jur is dic ti onal

. Id. a t 7 5 6

. Addi ti onal ly , t he c our t not ed th at “ [s] ect ion 89.0 041' s n oti ce of sui t req uirement ag ain st a c ounty se rves t h e pur pose of aidi ng i n the manag ement an d cont ro l of the C it y ’s financ es and proper ty ” and t hat “ [t] he manner of deli v er y sp eci fied by the s tatut e as sures that county off ic ial s w il l re cei v e not ic e of a s uit after it has been fil ed to en able it to respon d time ly and prepa re a def ense .” Id. at 757

. Finding thatCoskey’ s “c it a ti o n , o rig ina l peti ti on and re q uestfor d is cl osure, an d ex hib it s metthes e pur poses of the n oti ce of sui t req uirement,” al ong w it h the fact t hat t he c ountya n swer e d and par ti ci pated in dis cov er

y , all w it hin thi rty day s of s uit bei ng filed , t he c our t c oncl uded t hat “w it hin thi rty

day s o f the date sui t w as filed, the county judg e and lawy er

represent ing the county had act ual kn ow led g e of the infor mati on req uired to be d is cl osed by se cti on 89. 004 1.” Id. ; see T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . 89. 0041( b) ; see a lso Dallas Count y v. Autry , 251 S.W .3d 155 , 158 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 08, p et. f iled) (h olding tha t plaint if f substa ntially compl ied w it h s ect ion 89.0 041 bec ause w it hin thi rty day s o f sui t bei ng fil ed, ( 1) the count y jud g e w as ser

v ed w it h c it ati on; a nd ( 2) the county , t hroug h the di str ic t at tor ney ’s off ic e, answ er ed)

. The cour

t t hen hel d that becau se Cos key subs tanti all y compl ied w it h s ect ion 89.0041 , di smi ss al under se cti on 89. 0041( c) w as not mand ator y . Id.8

In reachi ng i ts conc lus ion that subst anti al compl ian ce w it h 89. 0041 i s s uff ic ien t, the Dallas Court of

A ppe als relied on tw o T exas Su prem e Court cases w hich w e be liev e also appl y to the p re sentca se. F irst, i n Artco-Be ll C orp. v. City of Temple , t he pl ain ti ff se nt a noti ce let ter

thatcompli ed w it h all req uirements of the c it y ch arter ex ceptthatthe let ter

w as notv erif ied. 61 6 S.W .2d 190 , 191 (Tex. 1981 ). The def e nda nt m oved for sum ma ry judgme nt on v ari o u s g ro u n d s, includin g the assertion thatthe pla intif f failed to prope rly noti fy the d efendant of i ts cl aim as re q uired by the ci ty chart er . Id. The t ri al cour t g ra nted the mot ion for s ummary j udg ment, and t he appe ll ate court aff ir med. Id. Th e s up r em e cour t s tated that“ [t] he pur pose of t he not ic e req uirement i s t o prov ide the munic ipa li ty w it h
an o ppo rtunity to inv estigate a n accide nt w hile facts a re f resh an d con dition s rema in subs tanti all y

the same, thereby

enabl ing the Ci ty

to g uard agai nstunfounded cl aims and to settle cla ims and t o prep are for trial.” Id. at 19 2. Fur ther more, “ noti ce prov is ion s a re to be reg arded as i n ai d of the manag ement and control of the C it y ’s financ es and proper ty .” Id. H old ing thatthe v er ified noti ce provisio n wa s inv ali d bec ause itw as bey ond t he author it y of the c it y , t he s upr eme co urt s tated , “ ra ther than to aid i n the admi nis trati on of jus ti ce by pr ev enti ng spur iou s and unfounded cl aims , the v er ific ati on noti ce in fact pl aces an obs tac le in the p ath o f cit iz ens pursui ng a leg it imat e redress for w ro ng s commit ted b y pub lic entities.” Id. at 193. Seco nd, i n Cox

Enter pr is es, Inc . v

. Bo ar d of Tr ustees of A ust

in Indepen dent Scho ol District , t he Tex as Supreme C our t c onsi der ed the adv ance noti ce prov is ion of the Tex as Ope n Meetin gs Act, which req uired governmen tal ent ities to provide n otice of the subject of a meeting befor e the meeti ng w as hel d. 706 S. W .2d 9 56, 9 58- 59 ( Tex . 198 6) ; see T EX .9

G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 551.041 ( Ver non 200 4) ; see a lso T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 551.141 (V er non 200 4) ( noti ng thatac ti ons tak en i n v iol ati on of sec ti on 551. 041 are v oid abl e) . The supreme co urt dec ide d tha t t he pur pose of t he noti ce re q uirement w as to en sure tha t t he topi c t o b e consi der ed atthe meeti ng w as made publ icw it h reason abl e s peci fici ty w hen the p ubl ichas a spec ial int er est in the topi c, and t hat s ubst anti al compl ian ce is su ff ic ien t. Id. The cour

t held that noti ce desc ri bin g the topi c g enerall y l ik e “ personne l” or

“ li ti g ati on,”
w it hout a mor e s p e ci fic d esc ri pti on, d id not a mount t o s ubst anti al compl ian ce w it h the sta tute. Id. at 95 9- 60. As the D all as Cour

t of Appeals noted, both of these case s “s uppor

t a sta ndard of
s u b s t a n t ia l c o m p li a n c e wit h n o t ic e re qu ir e m e n t s u n d e r c e rt a in ci rc u m s t a n c e s , a n d we conclu de that standa rd app lies in these circumsta nces. ” Cos key, 247 S.W .3d a t 757

. The not ice pr o vis ion of

section 89.0 041 aids in the man agem entand control of a coun ty’ s finance s and proper

ty

. See i d. Not ic e prov ide d under the sta tute ensures that the c ounty is abl e to ti mely

respon d to and prepare a d efense to the sui t. See i d. W e ag re e w it h the Dal las C our

t of Appea ls thatsu bst anti al com p lia nce w it h s ect ion 89.0 041, suc h tha t t he county def e n d a n t has ac tual kn ow led g e of the infor mati on req uired to be d is cl osed by
sec ti on 89. 0041, is su ff ic ien t t o av oid di smi ss al under se cti on 89. 0041( c)

. See i d. T he Dallas Cou rt of

Appe als followed its Cos key dec is ion i n Dallas Coun ty v. Autry , 251 S.W .3d at 158. In Aut ry , the court reaffirmed that “ sec ti on 89.0041 i s n ot j ur is dic ti onal and tha t subst ant ial com pliance satisf ies its not ice requireme nts.” Id. The cour t found t hat Autr y su bst anti all y

co mpli ed w it h s ect ion 89.0 0 4 1 bec ause the record s how ed th at “ the ci tati on w as is sue d and ser v ed on the c ounty

j udg e w it hin thi rty

day s a fter s uitw as filed10

and, w it hin the same ti me peri od, t he C ounty throug h the di str ic t at tor ney ’s off ic e fil ed an
answ er .” I d. As in Cos key

and Aut ry , the record i n the presentca se demonst ra tes thatN ueces Coun ty had actua l know ledge of “( 1) the style and ca use n um ber of the suit; (2) the court in w hic h the su itw as filed ; ( 3) the date on w hic h the su itw as filed ; and (4) the name of the perso n f iling suit.” See T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . 89. 0041( b) ; Aut ry , 251 S.W .3d a t 158 ; Cos key, 247 S.W .3d at 757. On Ma rc h 8, 2006, dur ing the hear ing be f o re th e federal dis tr ic t c our

t jud g e, the dis tr ic t attor ney , on behal f of N ueces C ounty , ag re ed to di smi ss al of the feder al sui t s o tha t Ba ll est eros coul d fil e hi s retal iat ion cl aim in sta te c our t. Bal les teros ag re ed, in t h e same hear ing , t o notadv ance in sta te c our t any cl aims othe r than his retal iat ion cl aim. Thir teen day s l ater , on Ma rc h 21, 2006, Bal les teros filed su itag ain st Nue ces C ounty in sta te di str ic t c our

t on that ex actcl aim, as the par ti es had di sc uss ed w it h the federal dis tr ic t c our

t j udg e. Then, on Ma rc h 22, 2006, Bal les teros f ax ed th e N ueces C ounty atto rney a copy o f

h is o rig inal pet ition. O n March 29, 2 006 , Ballest eros pe rfecte d servi ce of proc ess on N ueces C ounty Ju dg e Ter ry

Shams ie. Bal les teros’ s o ri g ina l peti ti on s how ed “ (1 ) th e s ty le and c ause number of the s uit ; (2 ) the cour

t in w hic h the suit w as filed; (3) the date on w hic h the suit w as filed ; and ( 4) the name of the person fili ng su it ,” the pr eci se infor mati on re q uired by se cti on 89. 0041( b)

. See id. O n Apr il 21, 2006, Nue ces C ounty fil ed an or ig ina l answ er , a p le a to the j ur is dic ti on, a n d a m o ti o n to di sm iss . Nu e ce s Cou n ty’s a ct io n s ind ica te th a t itha d ac tu a l kn o wled ge of the informat ion req uired byse cti on 89. 0041( b)

. See i d. Throug h his federal law sui t and11

sta te c our

t fil ing s, Bal les teros prov ide d more i nformati on to N u e ce s County than di d the pla int iff in Aut

ry , whe re th e Da lla s Co u rtof Ap p e a ls fo u n d su b st a n ti a l co m p lia n ce th ro u gh the f ilin g o f

an original petition , perf ecting serv ice on th e cou nty j udge, a nd th e district attor ney’s f il ing an a nsw er . See Aut ry , 251 S.W .3d a t 158

. Base d on the fact s o f the pr esentca se, w e hol d tha t Ba ll est eros has subs tanti all y co mpli ed w it h sec ti on 89.0041 and that the tr ial cour

t er re d in dis mis si ng hi s s uitunder se cti on 89. 0041. See T EX . L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 89.0041 ; Autry , 251 S.W .3d a t 158 ; C osk ey , 247 S.W .3d a t 757

. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing sus tai ned Bal les teros’ s firs t tw o appel lat e is sues , w e re v erse the j udg ment
o f th e tri a l co u rt , o rd e r Ba lle st e ro s’s su itrei n st a te d , a n d rem a n d th e ca se fo r pr o ce e d in gs in acc ordance w it h thi s o pin ion

.

________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Di ss enti ng Opi nio n on re hear ing by

Ju sti ce Ros e Vel a. Opi nio n on re hear ing del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 14t h day

of Ma y , 200 9.