Opinion ID: 2641189
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Texas Statutes and Caselaw

Text: 8 Case: 12-20795 Document: 00512429000 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/04/2013 No. 12-20795 A survey of Texas statutes and caselaw reveals that the first Clark factor weighs in favor of finding UTHSCH an arm of the state. The state constitution provides for the establishment of the University of Texas System. Tex. Const. art. VII, § 10 (“The Legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, and styled ‘The University of Texas’, for the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences.”). The Center is part of the University of Texas System. Tex. Educ. Code § 65.02(a) (“The University of Texas System is composed of the following institutions and entities: . . . (9) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.”). Texas statutes consider “a [public] university system or an institution of higher education” to be a “state agency.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 572.002(10)(B). Texas courts also treat UTHSCH to be a state agency. In Klein v. Hernandez, 315 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. 2010), the Texas Supreme Court held that a resident was an “employee of a state agency” in finding him entitled to immunity. See also id. at 6 (referencing legislative materials referring to UTHSCH as “a state agency-owned school”). In Illoh v. Carroll, No. 14-0901001-CV, 2012 WL 1570991, at  (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 3, 2012, no pet. h.), a Texas Court of Appeals referred to the “governmentalentity University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston” when evaluating whether the Texas Tort Claims Act’s limited waiver of immunity applied to a UTHSCH doctor. In Cheatham, the court referred to “UTHSCH, a governmental unit” when reviewing claims against “two UTHSCHemployed doctors.” Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Hous. v. Cheatham, 357 S.W.3d 747, 748 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, review denied). The opinion goes on to refer to the defendants as “government-employed doctor[s]” 9 Case: 12-20795 Document: 00512429000 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/04/2013 No. 12-20795 and reviews statutory provisions governing the conduct of “government employee[s].” Id. at 749. King argues that these cases “never actually characterize UTHSCH as an ‘arm of the state,’” that Klein never directly implicated UTHSCH or sovereign immunity, and that other cases referring to the Center as a “governmental unit” are meaningless because that term is much broader than what is required for finding an entity to be an “arm of the state.” We acknowledge that there does not appear to be any case that evaluates all six Clark factors and finds the Center to be an arm of the state for either FCA or sovereign immunity purposes. But we do not read Clark’s first factor as requiring an entity claiming sovereign immunity to first identify on-point court decisions evaluating the issue and holding it to be entitled to sovereign immunity. If that were the case, we would not need a six-factor test. We find the aforementioned Texas authorities to weigh in favor of UTHSCH being an arm of the state.