Judge rejects appeal in Central Health lawsuit

Judge Amy Clark Meachum has rejected a request by plaintiffs suing Central Health to take an immediate appeal to the 3rd Court of Appeals over the agency’s transfer of $35 million per year to the University of Texas Dell Medical School. The plaintiffs – Rebecca Birch, Richard Franklin III and Esther Govea – say voters did not expect their tax money to be transferred to the medical school, but to be used to treat patients.

The judge has already ruled that the plaintiffs do not have a way to recoup the money previously transferred to UT. However, she is allowing them to go forward with their argument that Central Health, Travis County’s public hospital district that funds medical care for low-income residents, should be prevented from future transfers of money not for patient treatment. Central Health argues that Dr. Patrick Lee, its president and CEO, has the legal authority to transfer the funds and that money not directly used to treat patients is still within the allowed uses of taxpayer funds.

Central Health also contends that Lee is not subject to the litigation because he is acting within his authority.

Fred Lewis, attorney for the plaintiffs, said Central Health’s lawyers had initially agreed to the proposed appeal. However, when the parties went to court on June 14, Central Health’s lawyers did not appear to be in agreement. Lewis noted that Meachum has already ruled against Central Health’s plea to the jurisdiction, in effect ruling that her court does have the authority to make decisions in this case.

So unless Central Health decides to file an appeal on the plea to the jurisdiction before the case goes to trial, lawyers and witnesses for both sides may be involved in depositions and other legal matters. Asked whether the case might go to trial by August, Lewis just laughed. The case was filed in October 2017 by Austin attorney Phil Durst, who passed away in 2019.

In response to the plaintiffs’ request to move forward with an appeal, Central Health responded, “The issue of Central Health and Dr. Lee’s constitutional and statutory authority is a question of law and there are no fact issues that need to be resolved in connection with the parties’ dispute. … Accordingly, Dr. Lee does not believe that there are any circumstances under which further discovery in this action would be merited. Dr. Lee also does not agree to a stay of all trial court proceedings should the Court grant” the request for an interlocutory appeal.

If the judge granted a motion for the appeal, the plaintiffs and Central Health would be proceeding at the appellate court and in Meachum’s court at the same time.

The Austin Monitor received the following statement from Ted Burton, spokesperson for Central Health:

In May, Judge Amy Clark Meachum denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which sought to stop the annual payment to UT under the Affiliation Agreement between UT and Central Health, as well as other spending including money to address non-medical factors that influence health outcomes, such as access to transportation to and from medical visits.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeks to overturn the 2012 vote by Travis County residents to support Central Health’s $35 million annual funding of a medical school.

The plaintiffs asked Judge Meachum for permission to appeal her decision. On Monday, Judge Meachum issued a brief ruling: “After careful consideration of Plaintiffs’ Request for Permissive Interlocutory Appeal, the response, the evidence, the pleadings and arguments of counsel, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ Request for Permissive Interlocutory Appeal.”

Central Health will continue to defend its efforts to expand the health care infrastructure in Travis County and improve health outcomes for the patients it serves. Since 2017, Central Health has spent more than $244,000 of public funds on legal fees to defend itself from Mr. Lewis’ lawsuit. The amount will go up if the litigation continues.

Photo by Larry D. Moore, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.