Rodriguez v. Christus Spohn Health Sys. Corp.

• Decision Date: 23 December 2010
• Docket Number: No. 10-40371,10-40371
• Citation: 628 F.3d 731
• Parties: Susanna Hinojosa RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION: Christus Spohn Health System Corporation, doing business as Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial; Christus Health, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

628 F.3d 731

Susanna Hinojosa RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION: Christus Spohn Health System Corporation, doing business as Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial; Christus Health, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10-40371.

United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 23, 2010.

Gay Ellen Gilson, Counsel (argued), Law Office of Gay E. Gilson, Corpus Christi, TX, Adriaan Tieleman Jansse, M.D., Jansse & Moore, P.L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, for Rodriguez.

Warren S. Huang (argued), David R. Iler, Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

Appellants CHRISTUS Spohn Health System Corp., CHRISTUS Spohn Health System Corp. d/b/a CHRISTUS Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial, and CHRISTUS Health (collectively "CHRISTUS") appeal the district court's denial of their Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Appellee Susanna Hinojosa Rodriguez's state law claims based on government immunity. The primary issue on appeal is whether Rodriguez's claims fall under the Texas Tort Claims Act. If so, defendant CHRISTUS is entitled to government immunity on her state law claims, ¹ and defendant John Hill must be dismissed pursuant to the Tort Claims Act's election of remedies provision. The district court denied CHRISTUS's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that Rodriguez's claims were statutory claims and therefore not covered by the Tort Claims Act. We vacate that order but a limited claim is approved.

I. Background

Rodriguez brought suit alleging that while receiving voluntary inpatient mental health treatment at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial, Behavioral Medicine Department she was sexually assaulted by a staff member, John Hill ("Hill"). Along with allegations of violations of the Texas and United States Constitutions, she pleaded causes of action against CHRISTUS for violations of (1) Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—the Medical Liability Act; (2) Chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—the Sexual Exploitation by Mental Health Services Provider Act; and (3) Chapter 321 of the Texas Health and Safety Code—"Patient Bill of Rights." Additionally, she pleaded a cause of action against Hill for assault and battery.

CHRISTUS filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss based on immunity and election of remedies, or alternatively a motion for partial summary judgment. With onesmall exception, the district court denied CHRISTUS's 12(b)(1) motion, ruling that CHRISTUS did not have immunity from suit on Rodriguez's claims. The district court granted CHRISTUS's motion to certify its order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We subsequently granted their motion for leave to appeal. We, therefore, have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

II. Discussion

"We review a ruling on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo,"² "applying the same standards as the district court."³ A district court may determine its jurisdiction based on "(1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts."⁴ "[I]f the court's decision rests on one of the first two of these bases—in which case the court need not decide among conflicting factual positions—our review is limited to determining whether the district court's application of the law is correct and, if the decision is based on undisputed facts, whether those facts are indeed undisputed."⁵ "But, if the court has relied ... on its own determination of disputed factual issues, we must then review those findings as we would any other district court resolution of factual disputes—we must accept the district court's findings unless they are 'clearly erroneous.' "⁶

A. Claims Against CHRISTUS

As a threshold matter, the parties do not contest the district court's determination that CHRISTUS is a "hospital district management contractor" as defined by section 285.071 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. Since CHRISTUS is a hospital district management contractor, it is entitled to governmental immunity⁷ for the purposes of Chapters 101, 102, and 108 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.⁸ Chapter 101 is the Texas Tort Claims Act, while chapters 102 and 108 cover tort claims payments by local governments, and limitation of liability for public servants, respectively. And Rodriguez does not claim that a Tort Claims Act tort would be entitled to the limited waiver of immunity provided by the Act. ⁹ Where the parties part ways is on the question whether Rodriguez's three state law claims are torts that fall under the Act.

1. Torts Falling "Under the Tort Claims Act"

CHRISTUS contends that the district court erred when it held that statutory claims may never fall under the Tort Claims Act, and argues that Texas courts have long applied the Act to various statutory causes of action. Rodriguez argues that the waiver granted to "hospital districtmanagement contractors" should be extremely limited—applying to common law torts only; to read it otherwise would essentially make these contractors a part of the government. However, the statute itself and the case law do not support her argument.

The Tort Claims Act itself contains no language limiting its scope to common law torts. Instead, the Act's limited waiver allows for certain actions for which a person "would be personally liable to the claimant according to Texas law," not Texas common law.¹⁰ Also, the Texas Legislature placed it in Title 4 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, entitled "Liability in Tort," which codifies, or makes statutory, many traditional common law torts, such as Libel—Chapter 73, Trespass—Chapter 80, and Products Liability—Chapter 82. And, the Legislature clearly contemplated the interplay of statutory torts with the Tort Claims Act. For example, in Chapter 74—the Medical Liability Act, the Legislature provided that "in the event of a conflict between this chapter and Section 101.023, 102.003, or 108.002, those sections of this code control to the extent of the conflict,"¹¹ and specified that "[t]his chapter does not waive sovereign immunity from suit or from liability."¹² Nor does the plain language of § 285.072 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, conveying governmental immunity to hospital district management contractors, limit immunity to common law torts alone. ¹³

The Texas Supreme Court has held that causes of action based on statutes containing their own waiver of immunity do not fall under the Act. ¹⁴ However, the Texas Supreme Court has never barred all statutory claims from falling under the Tort Claims Act. And, subsequent cases from the state courts of appeals have followed the pattern of distinguishing claims based on statutes containing independent waivers of immunity.¹⁵ Further, Texas courts treat statutory torts like common law torts absent some conflicting statutory provisions.¹⁶ We are, therefore, persuaded that statutory claims may fall under theTort Claims Act provided (1) they are tort claims, and (2) they do not contain independent waivers of sovereign immunity, and we analyze Rodriguez's claims accordingly.

It should be understood that "the Tort Claims Act does not create a cause of action; it merely waives sovereign immunity as a bar to a suit that would otherwise exist."¹⁷ Claims brought under the Tort Claims Act must first be claims based on a viable theory of tort liability. So, the phrase "brought under the Tort Claims Act" is merely shorthand for the fact that the government may not be sued in tort unless a separate, viable tort fits within the limited waiver provided by the Act.

Therefore, the question becomes whether Rodriguez's statutory claims sound in tort, and, if so, whether they contain an independent waiver of immunity. The Tort Claims Act does not define tort, so we apply its commonly accepted meaning. Tort liability depends on both the existence and violation of a duty.¹⁸ Statutes may create duties on which tort liability is premised.¹⁹ Not all statutory claims sound in tort, so the court must examine each claim to determine its basis. "The precise nature of the claim is ordinarily identified by examining the damages alleged: when the damages are purely economic, the claim sounds in contract, but a ... claim alleging damages for death or personal injury sounds in tort." ²⁰

2. Chapter 74 Claim

In her first claim against CHRISTUS, based on Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—the Medical Liability Act, Rodriguez alleges inter alia that CHRISTUS owed her a duty to keep her safe by following proper procedures for warning patients, hiring and training employees, and providing a safe environment. Because of CHRISTUS's alleged breach of its duty, Rodriguez claims that she was sexually assaulted by an employee. She seeks damages for her injury. Chapter 74 does not create a separate cause of action, but rather governs all tort claims that are considered "health care liability claims" as defined by the statute.²¹ But even if it did create a statutory cause of action, it would sound in tort. The Texas Legislature classified Chapter 74 as affecting tort claims when it placed it in Title 4 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, entitled Liability in Tort. Rodriguez's Chapter 74 claim sounds in tort. Additionally, Chapter 74 expressly does not waive sovereign immunity.²² Rodriguez's Chapter 74 claim must be dismissed because it is a tort based on a statute that contains no independent waiver of immunity.

3. Chapter 81

In the second claim, under Chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practice andRemedies Code—the Sexual Exploitation by Mental Health Provider Act, Rodriguez alleges that s...