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

Heading: Claims Against Hill

Text: CHRISTUS argues that the district court erred when it denied CHRISTUS's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Rodriguez's claims for assault and battery against Hill. CHRISTUS contends that pursuant to the Tort Claims Act's election of remedies scheme laid out in § 101.106, [31] Hill must be dismissed as a party. Rodriguez counters that for the reasons she urged above, the Tort Claims Act, and therefore its election of remedies provision, is inapplicable. In their briefing, the parties do not dispute that Hill is an employee of CHRISTUS [32] or that CHRISTUS filed a motion under this section to have Hill dismissed. As discussed above, Rodriguez's claims all fall within the scope of the Tort Claims Act. And, her claims against Hill and CHRISTUS arise from the same incident the alleged sexual assault by Hill. [33] The Texas Supreme Court has held that all claims falling under the Tort Claims Act, not just those for which the Tort Claims Act waived immunity, trigger the election of remedies provision. [34] Therefore, pursuant to the election of remedies provision of the Tort Claims Act, Rodriguez's claims against Hill must be dismissed.