Basilio Angulo-Perez v. the University of Texas Medical Branch

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 20, 2006
Docket14-05-00963-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Basilio Angulo-Perez v. the University of Texas Medical Branch (Basilio Angulo-Perez v. the University of Texas Medical Branch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Basilio Angulo-Perez v. the University of Texas Medical Branch, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 20, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 20, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00963-CV

BASILIO ANGULO-PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03CV0977

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Basilio Angulo-Perez, an inmate, filed suit against the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) for medical malpractice and negligence.  UTMB filed a plea to the jurisdiction on two grounds: (1) appellant=s pleadings failed to state a claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act=s (the Act) limited waiver of sovereign immunity, and (2) appellant failed to provide written notice within six months, as required by the Act.  The trial court sustained the plea. 


On appeal, appellant does not address either of these grounds for granting the plea to the jurisdiction.  Rather, appellant claims UTMB=s immunity does not extend to a commercial contract with the federal government to treat prisoners in federal custody. 

The State does not waive immunity from suit simply by contracting with another entity.  See General Serv. Comm. v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., Inc, 39 S.W.3d 591, 594 (Tex. 2001).  There must still be legislative consent to sue.  Id.  Appellant still had the burden to establish immunity had been waived.  See id. 

When a trial court sustains a plea to the jurisdiction without specifying grounds, appellant must challenge each ground asserted in the plea.  See Britton v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).  See also Fox v. Maguire, 2005 WL 1791586, *2 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 2005, pet. denied) (not yet released for publication); Fox v. Wardy, 2005 WL 1791589, *2 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 2005, pet. denied) (not yet released for publication); and Service Employment Redevelopment v. Fort Worth Independent School Dist., 163 S.W.3d 142, 147 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2005, pet. filed).  Appellant has not challenged either of the jurisdictional plea=s grounds.  Accordingly, we overrule appellant=s issue and affirm the trial court=s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 20, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fox v. Maguire
224 S.W.3d 304 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Fox v. Wardy
224 S.W.3d 300 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
39 S.W.3d 591 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Britton v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
95 S.W.3d 676 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Basilio Angulo-Perez v. the University of Texas Medical Branch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basilio-angulo-perez-v-the-university-of-texas-med-texapp-2006.