FILED
`1/31/2025 12:28 PM
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`DALLAS CO., TEXAS
`Zariya LeSueur DEPUTY
`
`Cause No. DC-24-18636
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`134th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`§
`
`§ § §
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§
`
`JASON J HYDE
`
`V.
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL
`Defendants
`
`ORIGINAL ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
`D/B/A PARKLAND HEALTH, SUED HEREIN AS “PARKLAND CORRECTIONAL
`SERVICES,” SUBJECT TO ITS PLEA TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
`
`TO THE SAID HONORABLE COURT:
`
`COMES NOW Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Health (hereinafter
`
`sometimes referred to as “Defendant” or “DCHD/Parkland”’), answering for what Plaintiff has
`
`sued as “Parkland Correctional Services” (a non-jural entity incapable of being sued), subject to
`
`its Plea to the Jurisdiction separately being filed herein, and makesandasserts this Original Answer
`
`to the allegations of the pro se Plaintiff in his “Original Petition” filed heretn on December 18,
`
`2024 and served on DCHD/Parkland’s President on January 22, 2025:
`
`L.
`
`General Denial
`
`Defendant generally denies all allegations of Plaintiff, as is its nght pursuant to Rule 92,
`
`T.R.C.P., and asserts its right to a trial by jury.
`
`II.
`Tort Claims Act and Sovereign/Governmental Immunity Defenses
`
`Plaintiff's Petition says he is suing “Parkland Correctional Services.” There is no such legal
`
`or jural entity capable of being sued. Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Health
`
`DCHD/Parkland Original Answer
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`
`1/31/2025 12:28 PM
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`DALLAS CO., TEXAS
`Zariya LeSueur DEPUTY
`
`Cause No. DC-24-18636
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`134th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`§
`
`§ § §
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§
`
`JASON J HYDE
`
`V.
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL
`Defendants
`
`ORIGINAL ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
`D/B/A PARKLAND HEALTH, SUED HEREIN AS “PARKLAND CORRECTIONAL
`SERVICES,” SUBJECT TO ITS PLEA TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
`
`TO THE SAID HONORABLE COURT:
`
`COMES NOW Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Health (hereinafter
`
`sometimes referred to as “Defendant” or “DCHD/Parkland”’), answering for what Plaintiff has
`
`sued as “Parkland Correctional Services” (a non-jural entity incapable of being sued), subject to
`
`its Plea to the Jurisdiction separately being filed herein, and makesandasserts this Original Answer
`
`to the allegations of the pro se Plaintiff in his “Original Petition” filed heretn on December 18,
`
`2024 and served on DCHD/Parkland’s President on January 22, 2025:
`
`L.
`
`General Denial
`
`Defendant generally denies all allegations of Plaintiff, as is its nght pursuant to Rule 92,
`
`T.R.C.P., and asserts its right to a trial by jury.
`
`II.
`Tort Claims Act and Sovereign/Governmental Immunity Defenses
`
`Plaintiff's Petition says he is suing “Parkland Correctional Services.” There is no such legal
`
`or jural entity capable of being sued. Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Health
`
`DCHD/Parkland Original Answer
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`(“DCHD/Parkland”) does provide the Correctional Health services in the Dallas County Jail, and
`
`rather than moving to dismiss on non-jural entity grounds DCHD/Parkland hereby answers for the
`
`correct entity to joins issue to assert its denial ofPlaintiffs allegations and assert its defenses including
`
`the Court’s lack of tort subject-matter jurisdiction
`
`DCHD/Parkland is a governmental unit as defined by the Texas Tort Claims Act. Sec.
`
`101.001(3), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. It is a hospital district and a political subdivision of the
`
`State of Texas created pursuant to Article 9, §4, Texas Constitution; Article 449n, Tex. Rev. Civ.
`
`Stat.; and Sec. 281.002., Tex. Health & Safety Code. See Kassen v. Hatley, 887 S.W.2d 4, 13 (Tex.
`
`1994); Scott v. Dallas County Hospital District, 2010 WL 7138, *6 (N.D. Tex. 2010). Accordingly,
`
`DCHD/Parkland has full sovereign/governmental
`
`immunity in tort both from suit and from
`
`liability, save only to the extent of the limited waiver of same granted by Texas Tort Claims Act.
`
`Sec. 101.025, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, Defendantasserts the
`
`following defenses and limitations:
`
`A.
`
`Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's alleged cause of action is barred because
`
`Defendant cannot be held liable in tort for any injury not caused by the
`
`condition or an employee's negligent use of tangible personalor real property
`
`within the meaning of Section 101.021, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
`
`Code. Those statutory requirements are not pled and cannot be metin this case.
`
`Accordingly, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and Defendant is
`
`filing a plea to the jurisdiction on this ground.
`
`B.
`
`Defendantasserts that, as a unit of local government,its potential tort liability
`
`for alleged bodily injury is limited to money damagesin a maximum amount
`
`of $100,000 for each injured person. Section 101.023 (b), Texas Civil Practice
`
`DCHD/Parkland Original Answer
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`& Remedies Code. Defendant accordingly asserts that its maximum potential
`
`tort liability in this case is statutorily capped at $100,000.00.
`
`Cc.
`
`Defendantasserts that it cannot be held liable for exemplary damages. Section
`
`101.024, Texas Crvil Practice & Remedies Code.
`
`D.
`
`Defendant asserts that it cannot be held liable under a claim for any alleged
`
`intentional tort. Section 101.057(2), Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
`
`E.
`
`Defendantasserts that no cause of action exists in tort against this governmental
`
`entity for alleged discretionary acts of its employeesoritself. Sec. 101.056,
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code.
`
`F,
`
`Defendantasserts that by filing suit against this governmental unit, Plaintiff
`
`has made an irrevocable election that immediately and forever bars any tort
`
`suit or recovery by him against any individual employees of Defendant
`
`regarding the same subject matter, and if Plaintiff improvidently tries to sue
`
`any of Defendants employees then all such individual employees will be
`
`entitled to immediate dismissal upon DCHD/Parkland’s filing of a motion to
`
`dismiss on this basis. Sec. 101.106 (a) & (e), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code.
`
`It.
`Texas Medical Liability Act
`Chapter 74, Tex Civ Prac & Rem Code
`
`DCHD/Parkland is a “health care provider” within the definition of Sec. 74.001(11), Tex
`
`Civ Prac & Rem Code. Accordingly, Plaintiff's alleged tort/negligence cause of action is also
`
`subject to the conditions, requirements, limitations, and other provisions of Chapter 74, Tex Civ
`
`Prac & Rem Code, which are hereby asserted by Defendant. These include but are not limited to:
`
`the notice of claim requirement of Sec. 74.051, the expert witness report and CV requirements of
`
`DCHD/Parkland Original Answer
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`Section 74.351, the qualifications of expert witnessesin suits against health care provider standards
`
`of Section 74.402, the qualifications of expert witnesses on causation in health care liability claims
`
`standards of Section 74.403, and the strict two-yearstatute of limitations of Sec. 74.251. Defendant
`
`asserts all of these provisions.
`
`Defendant further asserts the limitations on discovery provided by Sec. 74.351(s).
`
`IV.
`Federal Claims, If Any
`
`DCHD/Parkland is a governmental entity entitled to sovereign/governmental
`
`immunity.
`
`Plaintiff has not even tried to allege a colorable civil rights claim against this Defendant, however,
`
`randomlyscattered in his Petition are the words “violation of civil and constitutional rights,” “ADA
`
`93
`
`66
`
`compliance,”
`
`“constitutional nghts,” with no attempt to link any of those words to elements of a
`
`constitutional claim. However, if and to the extent that Plaintiffs allegations are somehow construed
`
`as attempting to assert federal civil rights claims, then Defendant denies them and asserts the
`
`following:
`
`A. DCHD/Parkland denies that Plaintiff's Petition states, and Defendant
`
`denies that it has committed, a violation of any rights protected by federal law
`
`and/or the United States Constitution that would overcome Defendant’s sovereign
`
`immunity and give rise to any claim by Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 or
`
`otherwise.
`
`B. DCHD/Parkland denies that there is any recognized substantive or
`
`procedural due processright of Plaintiff that was violated by Defendant.
`
`C. DCHD/Parkland denies that it has breached any alleged constitutional
`
`duty to provide reasonably necessary medical care or has otherwise deprived
`
`Plaintiff of any alleged right to reasonably necessary medicalcare for a subjectively
`
`DCHD/Parkland Original Answer
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`knownserious medical condition, with deliberate indifference by DCHD/Parkland
`
`or because of any alleged policy or custom or practice of DCHD/Parkland.
`
`Defendant specifically denies there was any policy, policy statement, ordinance,
`
`regulation, or decision officially adopted or promulgated, or any deprivation on its
`
`or its employees’ part visited pursuant to a governmental custom that would give
`
`rise to any constitutional claims that could be brought against DCHD/Parkland
`
`under 42 USC § 1983.
`
`D. DCHD/Parkland denies that any injuries alleged by Plaintiff resulted
`
`from an exercise of any “official custom” or “official policy” of Defendant, an
`
`absolute prerequisite for a constitutional claim against a local government entity
`
`such as Defendant. Governmental entities such as the Dallas County Hospital
`
`District can only be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if there is either an
`
`unconstitutional action by official policy makers or a policy or custom that caused
`
`the deprivation of a constitutional right. Governmental entity liability on a claim
`
`brought under Section 1983 requires proof of three elements: (1) a policymaker; (2)
`
`an official policy; and (3) a violation of constitutional rights of which the policy or
`
`custom is the “moving force.” Plaintiff must allege and prove facts which establish
`
`a violation of his constitutional rights, including a clearly established right to
`
`medical care, and that an official policy or practice of the Dallas County Hospital
`
`District was a “moving force” behind suchalleged violation. Plaintiff has not done
`
`so, and he cannot do so.
`
`E. DCHD/Parkland asserts that as a matter of law it cannot be held
`
`vicariously liable for employees’ alleged violations of Plaintiff's civil rights.
`
`DCHD/Parkland Original Answer
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`F. DCHD/Parklandasserts that any supervisory claims against it are barred
`
`as a matter of law, whether under 42 USC § 1983, or otherwise.
`
`G. DCHD/Parklandspecifically denies that it failed adequately to train or
`
`supervise any of its employees.
`
`Vv.
`Evidence Relating to Amount of Economic Damages
`
`Defendantasserts that Plaintiff's recovery of medical and/or healthcare expenses incurred,
`
`if any, is limited to the amounts actually paid or incurred by him or on his behalf, and that Plaintiff
`
`is prohibited from even presenting evidence before the jury of medical and/or healthcare expenses
`
`in excess of same. Section 41.0105, Tex Civ Prac & Rem Code; Haygood v. DeEscobedo, 356
`
`S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011).
`
`Defendant further asserts the standards of proof and jury instructions for any alleged loss
`
`of earnings, earning capacity, contributions of a pecuniary value, or loss of inheritance, as set
`
`forth in Sec. 18.091 (a) and (b), Tex Civ Prac & Rem Code.
`
`Vi
`Limitations on Recovery of Pre-JudgmentInterest
`
`Defendant asserts that any claim of Plaintiff to recover interest 1s limited as set forth in
`
`Chapter 304, Texas Finance Code, and Sec. 41.007, Tex Civ Prac & Rem Code.
`
`VIL.
`
`Notice of Intent
`
`Defendant hereby gives notice to Plaintiff under Rule 193.7, Texas Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, that Defendant may use any and/or all documents produced byPlaintiff during pretrial
`
`discovery, against Plaintiff at any and/orall pretrial proceedings, and attrial, and therefore any
`
`such documents are self-authenticating pursuant to that Rule.
`
`DCHD/Parkland Original Answer
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`Prayer
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that upon final hearing
`
`hereon,Plaintiff take nothing by his claims; that Defendant recoverall costs in its behalf expended;
`
`and that Defendant have such other and further relief to which it may showitselfjustly entitled.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Winston_L. Borum
`Winston L. Borum (02675500)
`Watson, Caraway, Luningham,
`Bradley & Trammel, LLP
`200 Fort Worth Club Building
`306 W. 7th Street
`Fort Worth, Texas 76102
`817.870.1717
`
`Fax 817.338.4842
`WBorum@watsoncaraway.com
`
`Dallas Office:
`4311 Oak Lawn, Suite 530
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel: 214-303-1706 Fax: 214-303-1802
`
`Attorneys for Dallas County Hospital District
`d/b/a Parkland Health, sued herein as “Parkland
`Correctional Services”
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Thisis to certify that on January 31, 20251 served a true and correct copy of the above
`and foregoing Original Answer on the designated attorneys in chargeforall parties registered for
`this case on E-file Texas by e-service through https://cfilc.txcourts.gov/, and to the pro se Plaintiff
`by certified mail return receipt requested and trackable USPS Priority Mail, as follows:
`
`Pro se Plaintiff
`Jason Hyde
`1107 W. 7" Ave #94
`Corsicana, TX 75110
`
`
`/s/Winston L. Borum
`Winston L. Borum
`
`DCHD/Parkland Original Answer
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`Automated Certificate of eService
`This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
`The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
`on the date and to the personslisted below. The rules governing
`certificates of service have not changed. Filers muststill provide a
`certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
`
`Chrissy Neber on behalf of Winston L. Borum
`Bar No. 2675500
`cneber@watsoncaraway.com
`Envelope ID: 96844240
`Filing Code Description: Original Answer - General Denial
`Filing Description: OF DEF DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
`SUBJECT TO ITS PLEA TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
`Status as of 1/31/2025 1:08 PM CST
`
`Associated Case Party: JASONJ.HYDE
`
` JASON JHYDE po JHYDE4UFL@GMAIL.COM|1/31/2025 12:28:03 PM|SENT
`
`Case Contacts
`
`Winston L.Borum po wborum@watsoncaraway.com|1/31/2025 12:28:03 PM|SENT fFrancineLy=f fly@dallascourts.org
`
`1/31/2025 12:28:03 PM|SENT
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
