Vazquez v. Health And Human Services Commission
| Decision Date | 28 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 03-20-00075-CV |
| Parties | Brenda Vazquez, Appellant v. Health and Human Services Commission, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO D-1-GN-19-000925, THE HONORABLE TODD A. BLOMERTH, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Kelly
Brenda Vazquez appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her suit against the Health and Human Services Commission, by which she sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), and attorneys' fees. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit, which the court granted. In five appellate issues, Vazquez contends that the court erred because (1) the APA conferred jurisdiction, (2) she has standing to bring her claims, (3) her UDJA claims are within the trial court's jurisdiction, (4) her constitutional claims are within the trial court's jurisdiction, and (5) the trial court should have filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
A properly qualified applicant may request from the state registrar a copy of the applicant's Texas birth certificate. Tex. Health &Safety Code § 191.051(a). The state registrar might refuse the request if there is any "addendum" attached to the birth certificate. Id. § 191.057(b). The state registrar attaches an addendum when "any information received by the state registrar . . . may contradict the information in" the birth certificate. Id. § 191.033(a). When refusing a request for a certified copy, the state registrar uses certain "criteria for refusal" based on contradictory information, including court orders showing that information in a birth certificate is false or other original records showing that the birth happened outside Texas. 25 Tex. Admin. Code § 181.21(b) (2020) ().
If there is "an addendum" to the birth certificate that is "based on evidence of contradictory birth facts," the Department of State Health Services (Department)[1] considers the birth certificate "flagged." Id. § 181.24(c)(1) (2020) (Dep't of State Health Servs., Abused, Misused, or Flagged Records). And if the birth certificate has such an addendum, the state registrar must "refuse to issue" any certified copy "until the conditions as stated on the . . . addendum have been satisfied" and the applicant has been notified. Id. § 181.24(c)(3). When she so refuses, the state registrar must tell the applicant why, and the Department must give the applicant "an opportunity for a hearing." Tex Health &Safety Code § 191.057(c); see also id. § 191.001(1) (). The hearing is "to determine if there is evidence to support the State Registrar's" refusal. 25 Tex. Admin. Code § 181.21(c)(1).
Upon a timely written request to the state registrar for a hearing she then asks the Department's Office of General Counsel "to initiate a hearing procedure in accordance with the department's hearing procedures, contained in" title 25, sections 1.51 through 1.55 of the Administrative Code which the Department calls its "fair hearing" procedures. 25 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 181.21(c)(2), (3), 181.24(d); accord id. §§ 1.51(a) (2020) (Dep't of State Health Servs., Purpose and Scope), 1.53(a) (2020) (Dep't of State Health Servs., Preliminary Matters). The state registrar must tell the applicant in writing once the hearing request has been sent to the Office of General Counsel. Id. § 181.21(c)(4). That office, upon receiving the state registrar's notice, assigns a "hearing examiner to conduct the hearing." Id. § 1.53(a). The applicant may, but need not, have legal counsel for the hearing. Id. § 1.52(c) (2020) (Dep't of State Health Servs., Notice).
Once assigned, the hearing examiner lets the applicant know the hearing's date, time, and place (usually somewhere in Austin) and that the applicant may ask that the hearing "be conducted based on the taking of oral testimony or written information contained in the program file and any additional written information the [applicant] may wish to submit, without the necessity of taking oral testimony." Id. § 1.53(b), (d). Pre-hearing discovery is limited to "examin[ing] the case file, claim file and any other documents or records the [Department] intends to use" at the hearing. Id. § 1.53(c). At the hearing, the applicant may (i) present information to refute the state registrar's reasons for refusing to issue a certified copy, (ii) bring witnesses, (iii) offer oral or written testimony, and (iv) state registrar's refusal. Id. § 1.54(a) (2020) (). The Department bears the burden of proof. Id. § 1.54(b).[2]
The hearing examiner may issue the final decision if the examiner has been delegated that authority by the "commissioner of health." Id. § 1.55(a), (c)(1) (2020) (Dep't of State Health Servs., The Hearing Decision).[3] If at the hearing there was no oral testimony, the decision must "be based exclusively on the evidence introduced at the hearing from the documents submitted by the [applicant] and the department"; "[o]therwise, [the] decision shall be based on the record of the hearing." Id. § 1.55(a). The decision may not "be based on undisclosed information." Id. § 1.53(e); accord id. § 1.53(f). And while it "need not include separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law," it still must "summarize the testimony and evidence, decide the facts, and identify evidence and regulations supporting the decision." Id. § 1.55(c)(3).
Vazquez requested a certified copy of her Texas birth certificate, but the state registrar refused because the birth certificate bore an addendum stemming from information suggesting that Vazquez was born in Mexico. Vazquez, represented by counsel, requested a hearing, and an administrative-law judge (ALJ) was assigned as hearing examiner and conducted the hearing. Vazquez presented testimony and documentary evidence, and the ALJ considered her evidence along with other information. Afterward, the ALJ entered a written order stating "that the State Registrar SHOULD NOT issue a certified copy of [Vazquez's] Texas birth certificate" and that its addendum "SHOULD NOT be removed." The order also included "appended" findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were "incorporated" in the order. The order and findings and conclusions say that they are "A FINAL DECISION OF THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION." Vazquez moved for rehearing, which was denied.
She then filed this suit against the Commission, seeking APA judicial review of the order and declarations that (1) the addendum should be removed, (2) a certified copy of her birth certificate should be issued, and (3) she was born in Texas. The Commission answered and filed its plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court held a hearing on the plea and signed an order granting it. That order dismissed all of Vazquez's claims, and this appeal followed.
The standards for review of a grant of a plea to the jurisdiction turn in part on the grounds on which the trial court granted the plea. See Texas Dep't of Parks &Wildlife v Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226-27 (Tex. 2004); Norman v. Williamson, No. 03-19-00297-CV, 2021 WL 500415, at *2 (Tex. App.-Austin Feb. 11, 2021, pet. filed) (mem. op.). If the trial court granted the plea based simply on the insufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings, we then accept as true all factual allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings. See Houston Belt &Terminal Ry. Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. 2016); Axtell v. University of Tex. at Austin, 69 S.W.3d 261, 264 (Tex. App.-Austin 2002, no pet.). We construe the plaintiff's pleadings liberally in the plaintiff's favor and look to the plaintiff's intent. Houston Belt &Terminal Ry., 487 S.W.3d at 160; Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. We review de novo and as a matter of law whether the factual allegations establish subject-matter jurisdiction. See Texas S. Univ. v. Villarreal, 620 S.W.3d 899, 905 (Tex. 2021); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. Review of the plaintiff's pleadings may involve any documents attached to the pleadings. See State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 878-79, 885-86 (Tex. 2009). Only if the plaintiff's pleadings affirmatively negate jurisdiction should the defendant's plea be granted without giving the plaintiff a chance to replead. Houston Belt &Terminal Ry., 487 S.W.3d at 160; Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227. On the other hand, if the plea is meritorious but the plaintiff's pleadings do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the plaintiff should have a chance to replead. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226-27.
By contrast, if the trial court granted the plea based on a challenge to the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues. Id. at 227. If the plea involved evidence implicating the merits of the case, we review the evidence to decide whether a fact issue exists. See id. If there is a fact question about jurisdiction, we cannot grant the plea, and the fact question will be resolved by the factfinder. See id. at 227-28. But if the relevant evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact question on jurisdiction, we rule on the plea as a matter of law. See id. at 228. To conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial