i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UMOP INION No . 0 4- 08 -0 01 36 -C V Don A. P AYNE , Appellant
v . CE NT ER

F OR HEA LTH C ARE SER

VI CE S , Appellee Fr om the 166th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI -10811 Honora ble Martha

Tanne r, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Sandee B ryan Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Catherine Stone, Justi ce Sandee B ryan Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: September 10, 2008 AFF I RMED T h is is ana

p p e a l f r o m th e tria l c o urt’ s o r d e r g r an ti n ga

p p e ll e e ’ s p le a

to th e ju r is d ic ti o n . We
a ff ir m. BACK GR OUND In the underlying lawsuit, Don Pay ne sued the Center for Hea lth Car e Servi ce s (“ C HCS”) for a lleg ed violations of Texas Hea lth and Safety Code section 241.152, which with exceptions not applicabl e h e r e p r o v id e s a s f o ll o w s : “ a h o s p it a l o r an a g e n t o r e mp lo y e e o f a h o s p it a l may not disclose hea lth care information about a patient to any person other than the patient or the patient’s04
- 08
- 00 13 6- CV

P ay ne al s o s ued f

or a l l ege d vi ol at i ons of t he f eder al H eal t h I ns ur anc e Po r t abi l i t y an d A ccoun t abi l i t y Act 1 (“H IP A A ” ) o f 1 9 9 6 . H o w e v e r, b e c a u se no p riv a te c a u se o f ac tio n e x ists un d e r H IP A A , s ee A car a v. B an ks , 470 F. 3d 569 , 571
- 72 ( 5t h Ci r . 200 6) ( concl udi ng Co ng r es s di d not i nt end f or pr i vat e e nf

orce ment of

H I P A A ) , we addres s onl y wh et her CH C S i s i mm un e f r om s ui t f

or a l l ege d vi ol at i ons of t he T exa s H eal t h a nd Saf et y Co de. Pay n e con t en ds CH CS’ s “ Loc al Pl an f or Fi s ca l Y ea r 2004- 2005” i n di ca t es CH CS i s f ac i n g a “ maj or 2 cr i t i cal t i me” an d “ a budge t s hor t f al l ” f or w hi ch C H C S has i ns t i t ut ed “ i mp l ement at i on of a f ee- f or- s er vi ces mo del
. ” Pay n e ar g u es “ f

ee s - f or - s er v i ce s a r e g ea r ed f or pr of i t ”; t h er ef

or e, u n der T ex as H ea l t h a n d Sa f et y Code s ec t i on 5 3 4 .0 0 1 , C H C S is no t an e n tit y e n tit le d to go v e rn m e n ta l i m m u n ity. See T EX . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E A NN . § 5 3 4 .0 0 1 (g ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 )( “A n e n tit y is, f o r th e p u rp o se o f o p e ra ting a p syc h ia tric c e n te r, a go v e rn m e n ta l un it and a un i t of

l ocal gove r nment un der C hapt er 101 , Ci vi l P r act i ce and Remed i es Co de, an d a l ocal gove r nment un der C h a p te r 1 0 2 , C ivil P ra c tice a n d R e m e d ie s C o d e , if th e e n tit y : (1 ) i s n o t o

p e ra te d to m a k e a p ro

fit
. . . .”) (e m p h a sis adde d)
. H owe v er , t h e r ec or d c on t ai n s n o e v i den ce t h at CH CS oper at es f or pr of i t . Pay n e al s o c on t en ds CH CS i s n ot ent i t l ed t o i m m uni t y be cause i t i s an i nd ep end ent ent i t y t hat act s as a “ p o rt al aut ho ri t y ” t hrough which “ [t he D e pa r t me n t of

M e n t a l Hea l t h a n d M e n t a l Re t a r da t i on ] do e s bu s i n e s s a s CHCS i n Bex a r Cou n t y ” a n d b e c a u s e CHCS o w ns p ro p erty i n it s o w n na m e. A ga i n, t he rec o rd co ntains no ev i d en ce t o sup p o rt t he se c o nten t i o ns.

- 2- leg ally authorized repr esentative without the written authorization of the patient or the patient ’s le g a ll y a uth o r iz e d r e p r e s e ntative.” T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 241.152(a) (Ve rnon 1 2001). “A patient ag g rieve d by a violation of this subchapter relating to the una

uthorized relea se of confide ntial health ca

re infor mation may

bring an action for: (1) appropriate injunctive re lief; and (2) damages resulting fr om the rele ase.” Id. § 241.156(a) . In his lawsuit, Pay ne alleg ed an individual working for CHCS improperly disclosed “confidential i nformation much of which was pe rs on a l in

natur e a nd e mba rr a ssi ng .” CH CS f

ile d a ple a to the jurisd ic tio n on th e g ro un ds that it
was e ntitled to im munity . The trial c ourt grante d the plea a nd this appeal by

Pay ne ensue d. DI SCU SSIO N On appe al, Pay

ne asse rts CHCS i s not en t i t l ed to immuni ty beca use CHCS operates f

or pr of it; is an ind e pe nd e nt e nti ty and no t a State e nti ty ; and

may “ su e and be su e d” in i ts o wn

name in any court of this State. Pay

ne’s a rguments are either not supported by the re cord or ar e without

2
me ri t. A par

ty suing a g overnme ntal entity

bear s the burden of aff

irmatively showing that the trial court ha s jurisdiction to hear the c ause. Te x . D e p’ t of Cri mi na l J

us tic ev . M

ille r, 51 S.W .3d 583, 58704
- 08
- 00 13 6- CV

- 3- (Tex. 2001). Whether a trial court has subjec t matter jurisdiction is a question of law subjec t to de
novo revie w. Tex. N

atural Res. Conservation Comm’n v . IT-Davy , 74 S.W .3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002); Mayhe w v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W .2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998). In revie wing a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction, we construe the pleading s in favor of the pleader an d l o o k to the pleade r’s intent. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex . Air Control Bd., 852 S.W .2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). Sovereign immunit y

protec ts the State from lawsuits for dam ages, and enc ompasses two principles: immunity

from suit a

nd immunit y

from liability
. IT-Davy

, 74 S.W. 3d

at 85 3. Immunit

y from sui t bars a la

wsuit ag ainst the State unless the L eg islature expressly g ives consent. I

d. Immunity from liability

protec ts the State from j udg ments even if the L eg islature has e x pressly g iven consent to sue. Id. A par

ty may establish consent by

ref ere ncinga leg islative statute or a r esolution g rantingexpress leg islative permission. Tex. Dep’ t of Tra n s p . v. Jo nes , 8 S. W. 3 d

6 3 6 , 6 3 8 ( T e x. 1999). “L eg islative consent to sue the State must be expressed in ‘ clea r a n dunambiguous languag e.’” IT-Davy

, 74 S.W .3d at 854. CHCS i s a mental he alth and mental re tardation center established pursua

nt to the Texas Hea lth a nd Safety Code. SeeT EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . §§ 534.001(b); 571.003 (V ernon Supp. 2007)
. A community cente r, such a CHCS, is “an ag ency of the state” and “a un i to f l o cal g overnme nt” “a s defined a nd specifie d by

Chapters 101 a

nd 102, Civil Practice and Remedie s Code.” Id. § 534.001(c) (1). “The purpose of section 534.001(c) (1), as demonstrated by its refe renc e to t he To rt Cla ims Ac t, is t o s ub je c t c omm

un ity c e nte rs to t

he lim ite d w a ive r o f s ov e re ign immun ity set forth in the Tor

t Claims Act.” Brooks v. Cente r for Healthcare Se rv. , 9 8 1 S
. W
. 2 d 279, 285 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). The Texas T ort Claims Ac t ( “TTCA” ) cre ates a limit ed waiver of sover eign immunit y under thre e cir cumstance s, only one of which possibly

applies her e: wher e the i n

j u ry was c aused by

a condition or use of

tang ible persona l or rea l property
. SeeT EX .04
- 08
- 00 13 6- CV

- 4- C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 101.021(2) ( Ver non 2005). Ho we v er , Pay ne’s a lleg ation that CHCS i mproperly

disclosed his medical infor mation does not fall wi thin the limi ted waive r of imm un ity un der s ect io n 1 01 .0 21 becau se “i nfo rm ati ondo es n otcon st itut e tangib le p ers on al p ro pe rt y and the State ha s not waived gove rnmental im munity for neg lige nce involving the use, misuse, or
non-use of information.” Sa las v . W ils on Me m’ l H

os p. Di st. , 139 S.W .3d 398, 403 (Tex. App.—San Anton io 2 00 4, no pe t.) . T he re fo re , Pa y ne may no t re ly on any lim ite d w a ive r c onta ine d in the TT CA f o r h i s ar gum e n tth atC H C S i s n o te n t i t l e d t o i m mun i ty. Pay ne ’s re lia nc e on He a lth and Sa fe ty Cod e se c tio n 12 1. 04 3, wh ic h p ro vid e s th at a “ pu bli c health dis trict may sue and be sued,” is also misplace d. SeeT EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 121.043(c) (Ve rnon 2001). In Salas , a pane l of this court examined Chapter 241 of the Hea lth and Safety Code to de termine whe ther the L eg islature intended to wa ive immunity from suit. Salas , 139 S.W .3d at 405-06. The Salas court conclude d the L eg islature intended no such wa iver. Id. at 406 (notingChapter 241 “ cre ates a meaning ful ca

us e o f ac tion ag ainst private hospitals, a c laim that
rema ins viable eve n if suit ag ainst the g overnme nt is barre d.”). CO NC LU SION For the above rea sons, we conc lude the trial court did not er r in grantingCHCS’s plea to the jurisdiction and we a ffirm the tria l court’s orde r.

Sandee B ryan Mar ion, J ustice