Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. Leah Anne Gonski Marino F/K/A Leah Anne Gonski and Jaou-Chen Huang, M.D.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 20, 2015·No. 01-13-01034-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-13-01034-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/20/2015 6:54:13 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

NO. 01-13-01034-CV

In the Court of Appeals FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS for the First Judicial District HOUSTON, TEXAS Houston, Texas 1/20/2015 6:54:13 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

SHIRLEY LENOIR, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SHANA LENOIR AND CHRISTOPHER MCKNIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF NAYLA MCKNIGHT Appellants, VS.

LEAH ANN GONSKI MARINO F/K/A LEAH ANNE GONSKI AND JAOU-CHEN HUANG, M.D.

Appellants.

On Appeal From the 164th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012-35806A The Honorable Alexandra Smoots-Hogan, Judge Presiding

APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellants, Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of

the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, Individually and as next

friend of Nayla McKnight, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. §52.9, file this motion for

rehearing of that portion of the Court’s opinion, issued on November 25, 2014,

Page 1 of 8 affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Appellee Jaou-Chen Huang under TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.106 (f).

I.

The Lenoirs filed a lawsuit against Dr. Huang in his individual capacity

because they alleged that his violations of state law proximately caused Shana

Lenoir’s death. In the Court’s opinion regarding Dr. Huang, the Court stated,

“Lenoir does not dispute that the Health Science Center is a governmental unit.

What she challenges is whether Dr. Huang was acting within the scope of his

employment with the Health Science Center when he oversaw Dr. Gonski’s care of

Lenoir.” Op. at 22.

While it is true that the Lenoirs challenged whether Dr. Huang was in the

scope of his employment for UTHSCH, the Lenoirs also challenged whether Dr.

Huang was acting as UTHSCH’s employee at the time of the incident in question.

See, Appellants’ Brief at 28-44. An alleged governmental employee has the burden

to establish—as a matter of law—that he is an employee of a governmental unit

and evidence that is disputed or insufficient cannot support a dismissal. Op. at 8.

However, the Court’s opinion does not discuss Dr. Huang’s status as an

employee of a governmental unit, even though the issue is hotly contested by the

Lenoirs. As defined by TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §101.001(2):

“Employee” means a person, including an officer or agent, who is in the paid service of a governmental unit by competent authority, but Page 2 of 8 does not include an independent contractor, an agent or employee of an independent contractor, or a person who performs tasks the details of which the governmental unit does not have the legal right to control.

Dr. Huang offered two affidavits in support of his argument that he was

acting as an employee of UTHSCH at the time of the incident. CR 333-334, 803-

807. No exhibits are attached to these affidavits or referenced in the affidavits.

The Lenoirs objected that statements in these affidavits were conclusory and were

contradicted by other evidence, including Dr. Huang’s contract with UT

Physicians, but the Court overruled these objections. Op. 26-28.

In City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W. 3d 802, 812 (Tex. 2005), the Court

discussed the rule that incompetent evidence is legally insufficient to support a

judgment, even if admitted without objection. The Court stated, “[Evidence

showing it to be incompetent cannot be disregarded, even if the result is contrary to

the verdict. If the rule were otherwise, incompetent evidence would always be

legally sufficient, because the evidence showing it to be incompetent could never

be considered.” The Court then gave the following example of when evidence is

legally insufficient:

Similarly, an employee's testimony that he was in the course and scope of his employment is legally insufficient to support a verdict against his employer if the evidence shows that legal conclusion to be incompetent. Id.

Page 3 of 8 Thus, Dr. Huang’s statements that he was an employee of UTHSCH at the

time of the incident are incompetent legal conclusions that cannot support his

dismissal, if the statements are contradicted by other evidence.

UT Physicians (formerly Uni Care Plus) is a Texas certified non-profit

health corporation which is regulated by TEX. OCC. CODE §162.001, et seq. CR

1046. Dr. Huang was working at a UT Physicians’ clinic at the time of the

incident performing medical services for professional fees. Dr. Huang signed a

written contract with UT Physicians to work at the facility. CR 1046-1062. UT

Physicians had the right to terminate Dr. Huang’s practice at its facility. CR 1049-

1050. Dr. Huang agreed to comply with UT Physicians’ conditions of employment

listed in the contract, including the requirement that he provide only “Medically

Necessary” medical services and comply with UT Physicians’ bylaws. CR 1046-

1049. The contract expressly states, “Participation in University Care Plus (now

U.T Physicians) has no effect on or relationship to faculty status at UT-H or

medical staff privileges at any hospital…”. CR 1049 at D.1 (“Effect of

Participation in University Care Plus”). More importantly for the Lenoirs’ claim

against him, Dr. Huang agreed to comply with UT Physicians’ billing policies and

to submit claims for his professional services using UT Physicians’ billing forms.

CR 1048, at ¶¶8-9. There is no mention of Dr. Huang supervising residents in the

UT Physicians’ contract and the Lenoirs have disputed that UT Physicians is a part

Page 4 of 8 of the UTHSCH residency training program. See, Appellants’ Brief regarding Dr.

Gonski.

Thus, UT Physicians had the legal right to control the details of Dr. Huang’s

work at its facility that the Lenoirs allege caused their decedent’s death, not

UTHSCH. Dr. Huang cannot claim he is entitled to governmental immunity

because of his faculty status at UTHSCH when the contract he signed to work at

the UT Physicians’ clinic says that the work is unrelated to his faculty status at

UTHSCH.

Finally, this Court rejected the Lenoirs’ ultra vires argument stating that

more recent case law indicates that an employee is within his scope of

employment, even if acts wrongly or negligently. However, the Lenoirs also cited

City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) in support of their ultra

vires argument. In Heinrich, the Texas Supreme Court stated, “[A]n action to

determine or protect a private party's rights against a state official who has acted

without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the State that sovereign

immunity bars.” Id. at 368, quoting Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401,

405 (Tex.1997). The Court also recognized a cause of action for money damages

against a government official in his individual capacity for wrongful or

unconstitutional conduct. Id. at 373, n. 7. Since the Court does not discuss

Page 5 of 8 Heinrich in its opinion, it is unclear why this case is not applicable to authorize the

Lenoirs’ claim.

PRAYER

For the reasons set forth above, Appellants respectfully request that this

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

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. Leah Anne Gonski Marino F/K/A Leah Anne Gonski and Jaou-Chen Huang, M.D., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. Leah Anne Gonski Marino F/K/A Leah Anne Gonski and Jaou-Chen Huang, M.D. (Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. Leah Anne Gonski Marino F/K/A Leah Anne Gonski and Jaou-Chen Huang, M.D.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrich
284 S.W.3d 366 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
City of Keller v. Wilson
168 S.W.3d 802 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University
951 S.W.2d 401 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)