All Things Texas Workers' Compensation

Facebook Linkedin

Title: 

Kuhl v. City of Garland

Date: 

January 26, 1995

Citation: 

05-94-00691-CV

Court: 

  • 5th COA – Dallas

Status: 

Unpublished Opinion

Table of Contents

  • Kuhl v. City of Garland

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

Rodger KUHL, Appellant

v.

CITY of Garland, Appellee

No. 05-94-00691-CV

|

Filed Jan. 25, 1995

Before THOMAS, CJ., and KINKEADE and MORRIS, JJ.

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*1 Rodger Kuhl was employed by the City of Garland in its sanitation department. On May 16, 1990, he was injured on the job and later filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. In April 1993 the City of Garland terminated appellant’s employment. He brought suit in March 1993 claiming wrongful termination and discrimination, in violation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. See Act of May 7, 1971, 62nd Leg., R.S., ch. 115, 1971 Tex. Gen. Laws 884 (recodified Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §§ 451.001-.003 (Vernon Supp. 1995)). Appellee answered the lawsuit, claimed immunity from liability under the Texas Tort Claims Act, and moved for summary judgment on that basis. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 101.001-.109 (Vernon 1986 & Supp. 1995). The trial court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed appellant’s lawsuit with prejudice. Appellant perfected appeal to this Court and raises a single point of error. He argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the Texas Tort Claims Act does not bar his article 8307c claim against appellee.

Both parties to this appeal recognize this Court’s opinion in Classen v. Irving Healthcare System, 868 S.W.2d 815 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, writ requested) controls our disposition of this case. Nevertheless, appellant invites us to reevaluate our holding in Classen. He argues that Barfield v. City of La Porte, 849 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1993, writ granted), and City of La Porte v. Prince, 851 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. App.-Waco 1993, writ granted), both of which hold that sovereign immunity is not a defense to an article 8307c claim, provide the correct analysis of the issue raised in this case. We decline appellant’s invitation.

Based on this Court’s opinion in Classen, appellee is entitled to the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity from appellant’s article 8307c claim. See Classen, 868 S.W.2d at 821. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.