Court Opinion

ID: 5105165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-02 03:23:04.006039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:55.049572
License: Public Domain

Case Number: 05-02-00143-CV 09/01/2004 Case stored in record room 08/30/2004 Mandate issued 07/09/2004 Opinion issued judgments of the courts below modified affirmed 07/09/2004 Concurring opinion issued. Document issued by the Supreme Court 07/09/2004 Court approved judgment sent to attys of record Document issued by the Supreme Court 07/09/2004 Order of the Court Issued Document issued by the Supreme Court 01/28/2004 Letter Filed 01/07/2004 Oral argument 12/29/2003 Additional citations received. 12/09/2003 Letter Filed 12/09/2003 Call received 12/08/2003 Call received 10/21/2003 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 10/21/2003 Call received 10/17/2003 Set for Submission 10/17/2003 Case set for oral argument set for oral argument 10/17/2003 Petition for Review disposed 10/09/2003 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 10/03/2003 Petition for Review disposed Granted 10/03/2003 Petition for Review granted 05/12/2003 Additional cites or additional authorities 04/28/2003 Waiver notice for brief on the merits 04/18/2003 Waiver notice for brief on the merits 04/07/2003 Brief filed. 03/28/2003 Record Received (See Remarks) 03/06/2003 Brief on the Merits Requested 03/05/2003 Record Requested in Petition for Review 02/13/2003 Reply filed 01/29/2003 Response to Petition for Review filed 01/15/2003 Notice from Counsel of a change in address 01/13/2003 Description of document returned to Supreme Court 12/31/2002 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response; mailbox rule does not apply 12/17/2002 Case forwarded to Court 12/13/2002 Miscellaneous motion disposed. See Remarks. Granted 12/13/2002 Miscellaneous motion disposed. See Remarks. Granted 12/11/2002 Miscellaneous motion filed. 12/09/2002 Phone call from Clerk's Office 12/06/2002 Response to Petition for Review waived 12/06/2002 Miscellaneous motion filed. 11/12/2002 Appendix Filed 11/12/2002 Petition for Review filed 10/16/2002 Description of document returned to Supreme Court 10/08/2002 M/E/T to file petition for review disposed Granted 09/27/2002 M/E/T to file petition for review filed
 MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this interlocutory appeal, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas ("UT Southwestern") appeals the trial court's denial of its "plea to the jurisdiction" in a lawsuit filed by Donna Loutzenhiser, as next friend of Stephen Luke Loutzenhiser, alleging that a prenatal procedure performed at UT Southwestern caused birth defects to her son. In three issues, UT Southwestern contends Loutzenhiser failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Texas Tort Claims Act ("the Act") and failed to allege and prove a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Act. UT Southwestern further alleged that it did not waive its plea to the jurisdiction. After reviewing UT Southwestern's issues, we conclude all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. The factual nature of the case, as well as its procedural history, pleadings, and evidence are known to the parties. Therefore, we do not recount these matters.
In UT Southwestern's first issue, it contends the trial court was without jurisdiction over Loutzenhiser's case because she failed to comply with the notice requirement of the Act. Acknowledging that this Court has previously held failure to comply with the notice requirement of the Act is not jurisdictional, see Stanton v. University of HealthSciences Center at Dallas, 997 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, pet. denied) (citing Essenburg v. Dallas, 988 S.W.2d 188, 188 (Tex. 1998), UT Southwestern nonetheless argues that this opinion has "been rejected by other appellate courts." We decline to overrule Stanton, and hold that the failure, if any, of Loutzenhiser to comply with the notice provisions of the Act does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.See Stanton, 997 S.W.2d at 629.
In its second issue, UT Southwestern contends Loutzenhiser failed to allege a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Act because her pleadings did not specifically allege the use of tangible personal property, and thus, the jurisdictional requirements of the Act have not been met. We disagree. In this case, the trial court specifically noted "[a]ll parties to the case know and have known that the plaintiffs' theory of the case has been that the insertion of [the] needle and performance of the CVS procedure caused the minor plaintiff'[s] birth defects." As long as the plaintiff has not affirmatively pled herself out of court, the trial court must allow the opportunity to amend the pleadings to cure a jurisdictional defect. Godley Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woods, 21 S.W.3d 656, 658 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied); see also Washington v. Fort BendIndep. Sch. Dist., 892 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). Here, the trial court treated UT Southwestern's complaint as a special exception, giving Loutzenhiser the opportunity to cure the obvious defect. We conclude the trial *Page 95 
court did not err in allowing her the opportunity to amend her pleadings.
We conclude the trial court did not err in denying UT Southwestern's "so-called plea to the jurisdiction." Because of our disposition of the first two issues, we need not address UT Southwestern's third issue. We affirm the trial court's judgment.