Tanner v. East Texas Mental Health, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-94-00100-CV,12-94-00100-CV |
| Parties | Hattie M. TANNER, Appellant, v. EAST TEXAS MENTAL HEALTH, INC. & the Andrews Center a/k/a Mental Health Mental Retardation Center of East Texas, & Mental Health Mental Retardation Regional Center of East Texas, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Michael G. Carroll, Tyler, for appellant.
Mike McNally and Lindsey S. Birdsong, Tyler, for appellee.
This is a summary judgment case in which the Appellant's negligence claim was dismissed on grounds of governmental immunity. We will affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellees, East Texas Mental Health, Inc. and the Andrews Center (hereinafter "the Center"), operate as a community mental health, mental retardation center established under the authority of the Texas Mental Health Mental Retardation Act. The Center is a unit of local government established jointly by five East Texas counties and governed and administered by an appointed board of trustees.
Appellant Hattie Tanner, a licensed vocational nurse, worked part-time at the Center as an independent contractor. While administering medication to mentally and/or physically handicapped children in a common area at the Center, Ms. Tanner was knocked down by one of the mentally retarded children. Ms. Tanner broke her hip as a result of the fall.
Ms. Tanner sued the Center for damages allegedly caused by the negligence of the Center's agents or employees. Ms. Tanner's allegations of negligence against the Center included the following:
(1) failure of the Center to provide her with a reasonably safe place to work;
(2) failure of the Center to establish written policies and procedures for the giving of medication;
(3) failure of the Center to adequately warn her of the dangers associated with the person causing injury to her;
(4) failure of the Center's other employees to render aid to her in administering medication;
(5) improperly advising her that she was prohibited from administering medication in the medication room when in fact no such policy existed.
On the Center's motion based on governmental immunity, the trial court granted summary judgment for the Center.
In her only point of error, Ms. Tanner argues that the trial court erred in granting the Center's motion for summary judgment. Our standard for reviewing a summary judgment is whether the Center, as movant, has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979). Ms. Tanner, as non-movant, is entitled to have all reasonable inferences made and all doubts resolved in her favor. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management, 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985); Univ. of Texas Health Science Center v. Big Train Carpet, 739 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.1987). Furthermore, we must take as true the uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Tanner. Swilley v. Hughes, 488 S.W.2d 64, 67 (Tex.1972).
In its motion for summary judgment, the Center alleged that it is a governmental unit and, subject to any waiver of immunity, is entitled to invoke the doctrine of governmental immunity. The Center argued that governmental immunity had not been waived for a claim based on the allegations made by Ms. Tanner. Ms. Tanner does not dispute in her brief on appeal the fact that the Center is a governmental unit. Ms. Tanner's argument is that the Center failed to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact on the issue of the governmental immunity. She claims she offered summary judgment proof on acts of negligence for which governmental immunity has been waived under Section 101.021 of the Texas Tort Claims Act (hereinafter "TTCA"). See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 101.001-.109 (Vernon 1986 & Supp.1992).
Section 101.021 of the TTCA provides, in pertinent part, that a governmental unit in Texas is liable for:
. . . . .
(2) personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or real property if the governmental unity would, were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Newton
...to properly use and score written diagnostic tests concerning evaluation, placement, and control of attacker); Tanner v. East Texas Mental Health, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1994, no writ) (misuse of policies and procedures manual by incorrectly stating instructions); Washington......
-
Amador v. San Antonio State Hosp.
...(Tex. 1994) (extending reasoning in York to medical records, patient files, and emergency room procedures manual); Tanner v. East Texas Mental Health, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 3, 4-5 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1994, no writ) (holding claim based on misuse of policy and procedure manual barred by immunity bec......
-
Harrison v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Paroles
...manual as well as medical records and patient files. See Kassen v. Hatley, 887 S.W.2d 4, 14 (Tex.1994); see also Tanner v. East Texas Mental Health, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1994, n.w.h.) (holding that employee's misuse of policy manual by giving incorrect information was not ......