From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:00:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2007/apr/050752.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16386 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

 

═════════_= 52;══

No. 05-0752

════════λ= 2;═══

 

UNITED STATES OF=20 AMERICA = AND=20 TRAILBLAZER HEALTH ENTERPRISES, LLC, Petitioners,

 

v.

 

AFUAH BOATENG, = JOHNELL SANDERS=20 FERNANDEZ, SHARON LONG GAY, JOEL S. HOCHMAN, ROSALIND HULL, GLORIA ANN = TUCKER=20 AND MISSY L. WALKER, Respondents

 

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;═

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth = District of=20 Texas

═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;══════════= ;══════════&#= 9552;

 

 

PER = CURIAM

 

 

In = this case,=20 the United States, on behalf of its Medicare intermediary TrailBlazer = Health=20 Enterprises, L.L.C., filed a bill of review asserting that the default=20 garnishment judgment rendered against TrailBlazer should be set aside on = sovereign immunity grounds[1]. At a preliminary = hearing,=20 the trial court granted the bill of review, set aside the default = judgment, and=20 dismissed the garnishment action, concluding that because TrailBlazer = was=20 entitled to sovereign immunity, the garnishment court lacked subject = matter=20 jurisdiction.

A = divided=20 court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that procedural due = process=20 required the trial court to set the matter for trial and provide the = garnishor=20 an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the bill of review. 171 = S.W.3d 481,=20 494. The dissent disagreed, observing that no process was due because = the trial=20 court correctly determined that sovereign immunity deprived the = garnishment=20 court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 495-98 (Hudson, J.,=20 dissenting). In a footnote, the majority disagreed with the dissent=92s = analysis,=20 but declined to explain, concluding that the merits of the sovereign = immunity=20 issue were not presented on appeal. Id. at 495, n.8. Because fact = issues=20 remain regarding the extent of the United States=92 and TrailBlazer=92s = sovereign=20 immunity claims, we deny the petitions for review.

 

 

Opinion=20 delivered:         April 20, = 2007

 

 


[1] TrailBlazer is also a party to this=20 appeal.