Opinion

University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Greenhouse

  • 889 S.W.2d 427
  • 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 3103
  • 1994 WL 500505
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Dec 22, 1994
Status
Published
On the bench
O'Connor, Oliver-Parrott, Wilson
Cited by
20 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.8%

holding that the trial court erred in applying the discovery rule

How later courts described this case

  • holding that the trial court erred in applying the discovery rule
  • noting a discovery rule was not applicable to a six-month notice provision and rejecting a constitutional challenge to that provision

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

OPINION ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

We overrule Greenhouse’s motion for rehearing.

In our opinion on UTMB’s motion for rehearing, we stated that Greenhouse waived her equal protection claim because she did not support it with argument or authority in her original brief. However, as Greenhouse points out in her motion for rehearing, she did file a postsubmission brief that addressed this issue. We therefore address the merits of her equal protection claim.

Greenhouse’s equal protection claim is without merit. Texas cases echo federal standards when determining whether a statute violates equal protection under either the federal or state constitution. Rose v. Doctor’s Hosp., 801 S.W.2d 841, 846 (Tex.1990). Those standards dictate that when the classification created by a state statute does not infringe upon fundamental rights or does not burden an inherently suspect class, equal protection requires only that the statutory classification be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Id. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, them laws result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts may be conceived to justify it. Tarrant County Hosp. Dist. v. Ray, 712 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

The purpose of the notice provision of the Tort Claims Act is to enable a governmental unit to investigate allegations against it while facts are fresh and conditions are substantially similar so it may guard against unfounded claims, settle claims, and prepare for trial. City of Houston v. Torres, 621 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tex.1981). The notice provision is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.