Source: http://texas-opinions.com/11-Franka-MD-v-Velasquez-Tex-2011-suit-against-government-employee-vs-entity-election-TTCA.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:12:41+00:00

Document:
Justice Medina filed a dissent, in which Justice Lehrmann joined.
Justice Guzman did not participate in the decision.
suit has been waived by the Act.2 But as we stated in Mission Consolidated Independent School District v.
judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
was a resident in the Center’s program.
injury to his brachial plexus, requiring surgery several months later.
use or misuse of tangible personal property in causing the orthopaedic and neurological injuries to baby [S.M.
urged that Franka’s motion be denied.
they were government employees as defined by the Act.
governmental unit” should be sufficient to enable a trial court to dismiss employees under section 101.106(f) . .
if applicable, would make her a government employee under section 101.106(f).
entities, and public hospitals to contract among themselves for, among other things, “the clinical education of .
approved by the Board; for all we know, the program could have been disapproved by the Board.
that she was an employee of a governmental unit for purposes of section 101.l06(f).
employee of the governmental unit regarding the same subject matter.
regarding the same subject matter unless the governmental unit consents.
obtaining the judgment from any suit against or recovery from the governmental unit.
employees shall immediately be dismissed on the filing of a motion by the governmental unit.
purposes of section 101.106. See Newman, 960 S.W.2d at 622.
become necessary for harmonizing the several subsections of the statute.
that suit is brought under the Act when it is filed, not when waiver of immunity by the Act is established.
reason why an employee should be entitled to dismissal if sued with the government but not if sued alone.
the same rule Mission applied in construing subsection (e).
The court of appeals’ construction of section 101.106(f) poses serious practical problems.
incentivize conflict between the two, and there is nothing to indicate that the Legislature had any such intent.
off that path to liability and recovery.
the employee. The immunity issue would thus be encased in confusion and cynicism.
claimant’s exclusive remedy for a government employee’s conduct in the scope of employment.
constitutional challenge is made in this case.
appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
1 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f).
under section 101.106(f) if a fact issue exists with regard to whether the governmental unit’s immunity is waived”).
Mental Retardation v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 344 (Tex. 1998), and Newman v. Obersteller, 960 S.W.2d 621, 622-623 (Tex.
4 Mission, 253 S.W.3d at 659 (citing Newman, 960 S.W.2d at 622).
5 The District does business as the University Health System. Its history is summarized on the System’s website at http://www.
students of the University of Texas Health Science Center . . . .”).
7 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f).
if the governmental unit would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas law.”).
based on an assertion of immunity.
governmental unit whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg. R.S., ch. 959, § 1, 1985 Tex.
Gen. Laws 3242, 3305, recodifying former Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6252-19, § 12(a), Act of May 14, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S., ch.
immunity remains unchanged. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(a)-(d).
asserting claims of governmental immunity.
10 216 S.W.3d 409, 413 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2006).
11 Id. (internal citation omitted).
Coastal Corp. v. Garza, 979 S.W.2d 318, 319 (Tex. 1998).”).
“Governmental Unit” . . . [or] that Dr. Franka was an employee of UTHSC but do contest Dr. Reddy’s alleged employee status.”).
14 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.001(2).
governmental unit under the Tort Claims Act).
detail of his work was controlled by the Center).
838, 842 (Tex. 2009) (citing Martinez v. Val Verde Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 140 S.W.3d 370, 371 (Tex. 2004)); cf. Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
271.091(1), 271.111(10), and 271.151 (contract claims against local governmental entities) (3)(C).
‘employee’ within the meaning of the Act simply because he or she must exercise some independent medical judgment.”).
advancement, practice privileges, duty hour schedule, and the nature of supervision necessary by attending teaching staff.” Cf.
concurring) (concluding that the evidence did not show that a resident was under the control of the sponsoring hospital).
asserted as provided under Section 101.106, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.”).
Science Center at San Antonio, including . . . The University of Texas Medical School at San Antonio . . . .”).
23 315 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. 2010).
24 Tex. Health & Safety Code § 312.003.
joinder of “a supported medical or dental school”).
26 Tex. Health & Safety Code § 312.001(b).
the students, interns, residents, and fellows enrolled at the units or schools.”).
29 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f).
30 216 S.W.3d 409, 412 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2006).
31 960 S.W.2d 621, 622 (Tex. 1997).
32 Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg. R.S., ch. 959, § 1, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 3242, 3305, recodifying former Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann.
same subject matter, against the employee of a unit of government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.”).
33 Newman, 960 S.W.2d at 622.
34 Newman v. Obersteller, 915 S.W.2d 198, 203 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1996), rev’d, 960 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. 1997).
imprisonment, or any other intentional tort . . . .”).
36 Newman, 960 S.W.2d at 622.
37 Newman, 915 S.W.2d at 200-201.
38 Newman, 960 S.W.2d at 622.
40 968 S.W.2d 339, 343-344 (Tex. 1998).
41 136 S.W.3d 635, 640 (Tex. 2004).
42 Bossley, 968 S.W.2d at 340-341.
45 Sykes, 136 S.W.3d at 637.
48 253 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex. 2008).
49 Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 11.05, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 886.
50 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106.
51 Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.001-21.556.
52 253 S.W.3d at 655.
56 Id. at 658-659 (footnote and some citations omitted).
60 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106.
Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (2006).
64 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f).
65 887 S.W.2d 4, 11 (Tex. 1994).
the employee under other statutes, a plaintiff could circumvent the TTCA.
plaintiffs to sue the governmental unit rather than an employee of the governmental unit.
of governmental units were entitled to the defense of official immunity. . . .
67 Two courts of appeals appear to have recognized that Mission requires the construction of section 101.106(f) we adopt.
Castro v. McNabb, 319 S.W.3d 721, 731-732 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2009, no pet.); Kelemen v. Elliott, 260 S.W.3d 518, 524 (Tex. App.
–Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). We disapprove the cases that have adopted a different construction. See McFadden v.
Texarkana 2008, pet. filed); Hall v. Provost, 232 S.W.3d 926, 928-929 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2007, no pet.); Turner v. Zellers, 232 S.W.
Jan. 21, 2011); Phillips v. Dafonte, 187 S.W.3d 669, 676-677 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
also Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855-56 (Tex. 2002).”).
rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act. . .
jurisdiction, the official is invoking the sovereign immunity from suit held by the government itself.”).
71 E.g. Miller v. Keyser, 90 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex. 2002); Leonard v. Abbott, 366 S.W.2d 925, 928-929 (Tex. 1963).
personal negligence or default in the discharge of his duties.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
73 Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 373 n.7 (“State officials may, of course, be sued in both their official and individual capacities.”).
I am not aware of a case denying it.
75 City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex. 1994).
76 Kassen v. Hatley, 887 S.W.2d 4, 9 (Tex. 1994).
upon the liability of its employee”).
to the claim.”). We noted the similarity in Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex. 1995).
81 Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 425 (U.S. 1995) (citing Pub. L. 87-258, § 1, 75 Stat. 539).
perimeter” of the county supervisor’s authority, citing, inter alia, Barr, 360 U.S. at 571).
also must have exercised governmental discretion in acting.”).
employment, and therefore were immune from personal liability”).
States under which such action against an individual is otherwise authorized.”).
86 Gutierrez de Martinez, 515 U.S. at 426 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-700, at 4 (1988)).
87 Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 10.11, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 884.
88 Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex. 2002).
89 See Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 357-358 (Tex. 1995).
90 Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. 1995).

References: v.

 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 § 1
 art. 6252
 § 12
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 312
 § 312
 § 101
 § 1
 v. 
 § 11
 § 101
 § 101
 § 7
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v.