Summary
The Texas Supreme Court held that a governmental entity’s immunity-from-suit claim implicates subject-matter jurisdiction and may be raised for the first time on an interlocutory appeal. The court concluded that the pleadings and record did not conclusively establish either a waiver of Rusk State Hospital’s immunity or the absence of a waiver, and therefore affirmed the remand for further proceedings. The opinion also addresses whether the Texas Tort Claims Act waived immunity for claims involving a plastic bag provided or made accessible to a psychiatric patient and alleged assisted suicide.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a governmental entity may assert sovereign immunity for the first time on an interlocutory appeal when the trial court did not previously consider the immunity issue.
- Whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a) precludes an appellate court from considering an immunity issue outside the specific interlocutory order under review.
- Whether the Blacks' allegations concerning the Hospital's provision or allowance of access to a plastic bag, the condition of the bag, and alleged assisted suicide or murder fall within the Texas Tort Claims Act's waiver of immunity.
- Whether the Hospital conclusively established that the Blacks' pleadings and record negated jurisdiction, that they had a full and fair opportunity to develop the jurisdictional record, or that they could not establish jurisdiction if given an opportunity on remand.
Holdings
- Because sovereign immunity from suit implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, an appellate court must consider an immunity challenge raised for the first time on interlocutory appeal at the outset to determine whether it has jurisdiction to address the merits.
- Section 51.014(a) does not preclude an appellate court from considering an immunity claim first asserted on interlocutory appeal.
- The Hospital did not conclusively establish that the Blacks' pleadings or record negated jurisdiction, that the Blacks had a full and fair opportunity to develop the jurisdictional record and amend their pleadings, or that they could not establish jurisdiction if given that opportunity; therefore, remand for further proceedings was required.
- The Texas Tort Claims Act did not waive the Hospital's immunity based on allegations that it provided, furnished, or allowed Travis access to the plastic bag, because those acts did not constitute the Hospital's use of tangible personal property and the bag's condition did not cause injury through its intended and ordinary use.
- The Texas Tort Claims Act did not waive immunity for claims based on alleged assisted suicide or murder because conduct undertaken with intent to cause harm constitutes an intentional tort, and the Act excludes claims arising from intentional torts.
Key quotations
“We hold that if immunity is first asserted on interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a) does not preclude the appellate court from having to consider the issue at the outset in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction to address the merits.” (392 S.W.3d at 95)
“But if the pleadings and record neither demonstrate jurisdiction nor conclusively negate it, then in order to obtain dismissal of the plaintiffs claim, the defendant entity has the burden to show either that the plaintiff failed to show jurisdiction despite having had full and fair opportunity in the trial court to develop the record and amend the pleadings; or, if such opportunity was not given, that the plaintiff would be unable to show the existence of jurisdiction if the cause were remanded to the trial court and such opportunity afforded.” (392 S.W.3d at 96)
Factual background
Travis Black was a psychiatric patient at Rusk State Hospital when he was found unconscious with a plastic bag over his head; resuscitation efforts failed, and an autopsy concluded that he died from asphyxiation and committed suicide. His parents, Dennis and Pam Black, sued the Hospital and other entities, alleging negligence involving access to the plastic bag, negligent training and supervision, and deliberate indifference to Travis's medical and psychiatric needs. They timely served an expert report and an autopsy report, but the Hospital challenged the reports under the Texas health care liability statute.
Procedural history
The trial court denied the Hospital's motion to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351. On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals dismissed some claims with prejudice, found the expert reports deficient as to remaining negligence claims, and remanded for consideration of a statutory cure extension; it declined to address the Hospital's immunity argument because the issue had not been presented below. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the court of appeals could consider immunity first, addressed the immunity issue itself, and affirmed the remand because the Hospital had not conclusively established that the jurisdictional defects were incurable or that the plaintiffs had received a full and fair opportunity to develop the record.
Remand instructions
The Blacks' claims against Rusk State Hospital were remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including further development of the jurisdictional record and an opportunity to amend pleadings as appropriate.