Plaintiff Janet Carroll appealed of the trial court's order granting dismissal of her claims against eight nurse defendants. The Austin COA affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Carroll filed suit against Seton Healthcare Network, who was operating as a "hospital distrcit management contractor." As such, Seton was a "governmental unit" entitled to the protection of Texas Tort Claims Act. After Carroll joined the eight nurses, who were employees of Seton, Seton filed a motion to dismiss under the Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provision. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 The trial court granted the mtion and dismissed the claims against the nurses.
On appeal, the COA relied on the Texas Supreme Court's reasoning in Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia, 253 S.W.2d 653, 658-659 (Tex. 2008). The Court held, "[b]ecause the Tort Claims Act is the only, albeit limited, avenue for common-law recovery against the government, all tort theories alleged against a governmental unti, whether it is sued alone or together with its employees, are assumed to be 'under the [Tort Claims Act]' for purposes of section 101.106." Id.
On appeal, the COA relied on the Texas Supreme Court's reasoning in Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia, 253 S.W.2d 653, 658-659 (Tex. 2008). The Court held, "[b]ecause the Tort Claims Act is the only, albeit limited, avenue for common-law recovery against the government, all tort theories alleged against a governmental unti, whether it is sued alone or together with its employees, are assumed to be 'under the [Tort Claims Act]' for purposes of section 101.106." Id.
Because Caroll's suit against Seton was a suit under section 101.106, her claims against the nurse-employees were barred.
No comments:
Post a Comment