Court Opinion

ID: 9757618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:49:52.546568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:41.565902
License: Public Domain

DON BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to issue one. The trial judge, in his letter to all counsel, stated:
It is this Court’s considered opinion that the legislature would not intentionally waive sovereign immunity for whistle blowers but refuse to do so for retaliatory discharge or, as is the issue in this case, retaliation for utilization of the hotline. [FN2 The practical effect of this would be to grant UTMB carte blanche to retaliate for anything other than whistle blowers. If that were the case, the chilling effect on UTMB employees’ pursuit of workers’ compensation claims (or use of the hotline) could well serve to deprive them of a long recognized right in this state.] Given this Court’s doubt as to the legislature’s intention, I believe the better practice would be to deny defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction at this time....
The trial judge considered the juxta position of similar statutes and made a ruling based upon those considerations. I concur with the trial judge’s analysis and therefore would overrule issue one.