Opinion ID: 181736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Against CHRISTUS

Text: As a threshold matter, the parties do not contest the district court's determination that CHRISTUS is a hospital district management contractor as defined by section 285.071 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. Since CHRISTUS is a hospital district management contractor, it is entitled to governmental immunity [7] for the purposes of Chapters 101, 102, and 108 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. [8] Chapter 101 is the Texas Tort Claims Act, while chapters 102 and 108 cover tort claims payments by local governments, and limitation of liability for public servants, respectively. And Rodriguez does not claim that a Tort Claims Act tort would be entitled to the limited waiver of immunity provided by the Act. [9] Where the parties part ways is on the question whether Rodriguez's three state law claims are torts that fall under the Act.
CHRISTUS contends that the district court erred when it held that statutory claims may never fall under the Tort Claims Act, and argues that Texas courts have long applied the Act to various statutory causes of action. Rodriguez argues that the waiver granted to hospital district management contractors should be extremely limitedapplying to common law torts only; to read it otherwise would essentially make these contractors a part of the government. However, the statute itself and the case law do not support her argument. The Tort Claims Act itself contains no language limiting its scope to common law torts. Instead, the Act's limited waiver allows for certain actions for which a person would be personally liable to the claimant according to Texas law,  not Texas common law. [10] Also, the Texas Legislature placed it in Title 4 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, entitled Liability in Tort, which codifies, or makes statutory, many traditional common law torts, such as LibelChapter 73, TrespassChapter 80, and Products LiabilityChapter 82. And, the Legislature clearly contemplated the interplay of statutory torts with the Tort Claims Act. For example, in Chapter 74the Medical Liability Act, the Legislature provided that in the event of a conflict between this chapter and Section 101.023, 102.003, or 108.002, those sections of this code control to the extent of the conflict, [11] and specified that [t]his chapter does not waive sovereign immunity from suit or from liability. [12] Nor does the plain language of § 285.072 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, conveying governmental immunity to hospital district management contractors, limit immunity to common law torts alone. [13] The Texas Supreme Court has held that causes of action based on statutes containing their own waiver of immunity do not fall under the Act. [14] However, the Texas Supreme Court has never barred all statutory claims from falling under the Tort Claims Act. And, subsequent cases from the state courts of appeals have followed the pattern of distinguishing claims based on statutes containing independent waivers of immunity. [15] Further, Texas courts treat statutory torts like common law torts absent some conflicting statutory provisions. [16] We are, therefore, persuaded that statutory claims may fall under the Tort Claims Act provided (1) they are tort claims, and (2) they do not contain independent waivers of sovereign immunity, and we analyze Rodriguez's claims accordingly. It should be understood that the Tort Claims Act does not create a cause of action; it merely waives sovereign immunity as a bar to a suit that would otherwise exist. [17] Claims brought under the Tort Claims Act must first be claims based on a viable theory of tort liability. So, the phrase brought under the Tort Claims Act is merely shorthand for the fact that the government may not be sued in tort unless a separate, viable tort fits within the limited waiver provided by the Act. Therefore, the question becomes whether Rodriguez's statutory claims sound in tort, and, if so, whether they contain an independent waiver of immunity. The Tort Claims Act does not define tort, so we apply its commonly accepted meaning. Tort liability depends on both the existence and violation of a duty. [18] Statutes may create duties on which tort liability is premised. [19] Not all statutory claims sound in tort, so the court must examine each claim to determine its basis. The precise nature of the claim is ordinarily identified by examining the damages alleged: when the damages are purely economic, the claim sounds in contract, but a... claim alleging damages for death or personal injury sounds in tort. [20]
In her first claim against CHRISTUS, based on Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Codethe Medical Liability Act, Rodriguez alleges inter alia that CHRISTUS owed her a duty to keep her safe by following proper procedures for warning patients, hiring and training employees, and providing a safe environment. Because of CHRISTUS's alleged breach of its duty, Rodriguez claims that she was sexually assaulted by an employee. She seeks damages for her injury. Chapter 74 does not create a separate cause of action, but rather governs all tort claims that are considered health care liability claims as defined by the statute. [21] But even if it did create a statutory cause of action, it would sound in tort. The Texas Legislature classified Chapter 74 as affecting tort claims when it placed it in Title 4 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, entitled Liability in Tort. Rodriguez's Chapter 74 claim sounds in tort. Additionally, Chapter 74 expressly does not waive sovereign immunity. [22] Rodriguez's Chapter 74 claim must be dismissed because it is a tort based on a statute that contains no independent waiver of immunity.
In the second claim, under Chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Codethe Sexual Exploitation by Mental Health Provider Act, Rodriguez alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Hillan employee of CHRISTUS. Here, she claims personal injury for which she seeks monetary damages and/or equitable relief. This claim also sounds in tort. However, Chapter 81 contains a partial waiver of immunity. [23] Section 81.010 allows a cause of action as defined in § 81.002 [24] against governmental units but only for (1) an order requiring the governmental unit to discharge the mental health services provider who committed the conduct; (2) court costs; and (3) reasonable attorney's fees, as determined by the court. [25] Since CHRISTUS is considered a governmental unit for the purposes of [the Tort Claims Act], it enjoys the same level of partial immunity. [26] Thus, it is immune to any claim under Chapter 81 except as allowed by § 81.010. Rodriguez's Chapter 81 claim must be dismissed, except to the extent that it falls under § 81.010.
Rodriguez's last claim is based on violations of Chapter 321 of the Texas Health and Safety CodePatient Bill of Rights. Section 321.002 imposes on all mental health facilities an affirmative duty to inform patients of their rights. [27] Section 321.003 provides a cause of action for breaches of this duty and proscribes remedies. [28] A plaintiff may sue for injunctive relief and/or damages, including damages for mental anguish. Although Chapter 321 does not fall within Title 4 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code codifying tort liability, the claim sounds in tort because of the remedy sought. [29] And since the Texas Supreme Court has determined that § 321.003 does not contain an independent waiver of sovereign immunity, [30] Rodriguez's Chapter 321 claim also falls under the Tort Claims Act and must be dismissed.