texas-health-human-services-commission-and-kyle-janek-in-his-official ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-12-00745-CV
    Texas Health & Human Services Commission; and Kyle Janek, in his Official Capacity as
    Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health & Human Services Commission, Appellants
    v.
    Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services,
    Inc.; Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County Texas, Inc.; Planned Parenthood
    Association of Lubbock, Inc.; Planned Parenthood Association of Cameron and
    Willacy Counties; Family Planning Associates of San Antonio; Planned Parenthood
    Gulf Coast, Inc.; and Planned Parenthood of West Texas, Inc., Appellees
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. D-1-GN-12-003365, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This appeal shares some common historical background with Texas Dep’t of State
    Health Servs. v. Balquinta, in which we have also issued our opinion and judgment today.1 Both
    appeals concern jurisdictional challenges interposed against claims brought by the appellees above
    complaining of administrative rules rendering them ineligible to participate as providers in one of
    the iterations of a State of Texas-funded health benefits program commonly known as the “Women’s
    Health Program” (WHP).2 Whereas Balquinta, the other cause, concerns appellees’ challenges to
    1
    No. 03-13-00063-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS ____ (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 9, 2014,
    no pet. h.) (“Balquinta”).
    2
    See generally 
    id., slip op.
    at 2-10 (summarizing the history of the WHP programs).
    their exclusion from the current version of the WHP, known as the “Texas Women’s Health
    Program” (TWHP),3 the present cause concerns similar challenges they made to their exclusion from
    the WHP’s former iteration, the “Medicaid WHP” we describe in our Balquinta opinion.4 More
    specifically, appellees’ suit underlying the present cause sought declaratory and injunctive relief to
    overturn HHSC administrative rules excluding them from the former Medicaid WHP and, relatedly,
    to compel appellants to cease such exclusion in order to remove a perceived impediment to renewal
    of a federal waiver allowing for federal Medicaid funding for that program.5
    As we also explain in Balquinta, the former Medicaid WHP no longer exists—the
    original statutory authorization for the program expired effective September 1, 2011; the
    federal government announced in March 2012 that it would end federal funding for the program
    effective on January 1, 2013, and it ultimately did so; and any state appropriations applicable to the
    program ended with the conclusion of the “2012-13” biennium on September 1, 2013.6 Furthermore,
    as appellants have pointed out, the state administrative rules that governed the former Medicaid
    WHP—and which were the principal focus of appellees’ lawsuit—were repealed effective
    November 1, 2013.7 Citing these facts, which are undisputed, appellants urge that we must dismiss
    the cause as moot. We agree. There is presently no live controversy concerning the now-defunct
    3
    However, in Balquinta, unlike the present cause, appellees are joined by an individual
    plaintiff, Marcela Balquinta, as suggested by its caption.
    4
    See 
    id. at 2-7.
           5
    See 
    id. at 7-14.
           6
    
    Id. at 7.
           7
    38 Tex. Reg. 7681 (2013).
    2
    Medicaid WHP, and any decision on the merits of appellees’ claims cannot affect rights or interests
    they could possess in this now-nonexistent program.8
    In response to appellants’ assertion of mootness, appellees acknowledge that
    their claims for relief challenging their exclusion from the former Medicaid WHP are now moot,
    but suggest that they might be able to replead to seek broader relief predicated on the notion that
    chapter 32 of the Human Resources Code imposes an affirmative duty on appellants to seek
    federal Medicaid funding for a new or renewed version of the Medicaid WHP. To the extent such
    a claim would otherwise be within the district court’s jurisdiction, appellees could pursue it in their
    still-pending Balquinta suit, where they have already asserted a similar theory.9
    Accordingly, we render judgment vacating the district court’s order on appeal and
    dismissing the cause for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.10
    __________________________________________
    Bob Pemberton, Justice
    Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Rose
    Vacated and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
    Filed: April 9, 2014
    8
    See, e.g., Williams v. Lara, 
    52 S.W.3d 171
    , 184 (Tex. 2001); Dewhurst v. Hendee,
    
    253 S.W.3d 320
    , 332-33 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. dism’d).
    9
    See Balquinta, No. 03-13-00063-CV, slip op. at 12.
    10
    See Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home & Serv. Agency, 
    847 S.W.2d 227
    , 229-30
    (Tex. 1993).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-12-00745-CV

Filed Date: 4/9/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/1/2016