 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Trimble v. Bennett3/9/2000
This is an appeal from the trial court's order dismissing appellant's suit as frivolous or malicious under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.003. We affirm.
Appellant is a prison inmate at the Darrington Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Appellees are medical personnel employed at the Darrington Unit. Proceeding pro se, appellant sued for medical malpractice, seeking $150,000 in compensatory damages under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Appellant alleged that the prison medical personnel gave him unauthorized treatments of insulin without a physician's orders. Without motion or hearing, the trial court dismissed appellant's claim before any defendants were served with process.
Dismissal of Claim
In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his lawsuit without a hearing.
A trial court may dismiss a claim, either before or after service of process, if the court finds that the claim is frivolous or malicious. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.003(a)(2). In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether the claim has no arguable basis in law or in fact. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.003(b)(2). When, as here, the trial court dismisses a cause without a fact hearing, the issue is whether the court properly determined that there was no arguable basis in law for the suit. See Hector v. Thaler, 862 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that trial court could not have determined there was no arguable basis in fact when it dismissed without a fact hearing).
The standard of review is abuse of discretion. Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720, 722 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, and without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id. We review and evaluate pro se pleadings by standards less stringent than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Id. To determine whether the trial court properly decided that there was no arguable basis in law for appellant's suit, we examine the types of relief and causes of action appellant pled in his petition to determine whether, as a matter of law, the petition stated a cause of action that would authorize relief. Id.
Texas Tort Claims Act
Appellant sued for medical malpractice under the Texas Tort Claims Act. A plaintiff bringing a cause of action under the Act must bring it against a "governmental unit" of the State. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.102(b); Perales v. Kinney, 891 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ). The Act does not govern suits brought directly against an employee of the State, even if the employee is sued in his official capacity. Lentworth, 981 S.W.2d at 722.
Under the "Parties" section of his petition, appellant named the following medical personnel employed at the Darrington Unit: (1) Mr. Howard Bennett, manager of health services and (2) Ms. Terri Ratliff, director of nursing. Because appellant did not name the State of Texas or any other governmental unit as a party, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claim. See id.
We overrule the sole point of error.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's dismissal of appellant's claim.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
|