# Tex. Tech Univ. Health Sci. Ctr. v. Mohrman Supreme Court of Texas, No. 26-0085 **Tex. Tech Univ. Health Sci. Ctr. v. Mohrman, No. 26-0085, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Whether the common-law mailbox rule applies to the Tort Claims Act's requirement that a governmental unit "receive" notice within six months, so that proof of mailing creates a fact issue on receipt.** Practice areas: governmental immunity, medical liability ## Key issues - Whether the common-law mailbox rule applies to the Tort Claims Act's requirement that a governmental unit "receive" notice within six months, so that proof of mailing creates a fact issue on receipt. - Whether, if the rule does not apply, the case must be remanded for the court of appeals to decide Mohrman's alternative actual-notice ground, which it did not reach. ## Factual History Philip Mohrman's husband, Robert Borst, was hospitalized at University Medical Center in November and December 2017 and treated by physicians employed by Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center-El Paso (TTUHSC); according to Mohrman, he reacted badly to an antibiotic, was given more of it, and died of complications on December 21, 2017 (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 12). Mohrman says his former counsel mailed formal written notice of the claim, dated April 5, 2018, to TTUHSC and the hospital (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 7). TTUHSC says it received no notice until February 15, 2019, more than a year after the death, when it learned of the claim in an email exchange with Mohrman's counsel (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 12). ## Procedural History Mohrman sued TTUHSC and the hospital for negligence in November 2019, and TTUHSC filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, arguing that its sovereign immunity was not waived because it did not receive notice within six months of the incident (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 12). The 34th District Court of El Paso County denied both (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 9). The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed without oral argument in an opinion by Justice Soto, *Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr.-El Paso v. Mohrman*, 736 S.W.3d 583; TTUHSC says the court adopted the common-law mailbox rule on its own initiative, holding that evidence of timely mailing created a fact dispute about timely receipt (Petition for Review, PDF p. 11). The court did not decide TTUHSC's alternative argument that it lacked actual notice under section 101.101(c) (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 26). The Supreme Court granted review on June 19, 2026, and set oral argument for January 11, 2027. ## Issues Presented TTUHSC presents one issue (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 10): whether the court of appeals erred when it sua sponte adopted and applied the common-law mailbox rule to the Tort Claims Act's formal-notice provision, which makes a claim timely only if the state defendant "receive[s] notice of a claim against it . . . not later than six months after" the incident (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ยง 101.101(a)). ## Standard(s) of Review Whether notice was timely is a jurisdictional question of law reviewed de novo. A plea to the jurisdiction asks whether the pleadings affirmatively show jurisdiction; the court also considers evidence negating jurisdictional facts when needed, and a fact question about jurisdiction prevents granting the plea (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 16). ## Legal Arguments **Whether the mailbox rule applies to formal notice.** **TTUHSC (Petitioner):** the statute entitles the government to "receive notice" within six months, so the date of receipt controls and the mailbox rule is incompatible with the text; by specifying the period in which notice must be received the Legislature precluded the rule, and it knows how to codify the rule when it wants to; a majority of Texas and federal courts agree, and waivers of sovereign immunity are narrowly construed (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 15). **Mohrman (Respondent):** the Eighth Court held only that competent evidence of proper mailing, together with TTUHSC's denial of receipt, created a fact issue on receipt; for a century Texas law has treated proper mailing as raising a rebuttable presumption of receipt, and a denial does not erase the evidence of mailing; the court applied that principle where TTUHSC bore the burden to conclusively establish its defense (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 9). **The split among the courts of appeals.** **TTUHSC (Petitioner):** the Eighth Court acknowledged its disagreement with at least three other courts of appeals about whether the mailbox rule applies to formal notice (Petition for Review, PDF p. 16). In reply, TTUHSC argues that Mohrman acknowledges the split (Reply to Response (Petitioner), PDF p. 9). **Mohrman (Respondent):** the conflict is narrower than TTUHSC suggests; the Eighth Court distinguished cases applying Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 5 and 21a, which govern filings and service, because Mohrman relied on the common-law rule, and explained why *Balderas* and *Rocha* do not control (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 10-11). **Vehicle and remedy.** **TTUHSC (Petitioner):** the narrowness of the ruling below offers a clean question: the mailbox rule was the sole basis for the decision, and the issue is preserved and important (Reply to Response (Petitioner), PDF p. 4). If TTUHSC prevails it asks for reversal and remand, noting that the Court's practice is to remand for the court of appeals to rule on an unaddressed issue (Petitioner's Brief on the Merits, PDF p. 26). **Mohrman (Respondent):** the petition is a poor vehicle because actual notice under section 101.101(c) is an independent, preserved ground the court of appeals never reached, so rendition would be improper and the most that could follow is a remand (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 10-11, 20). *Mohrman's brief on the merits, filed after the petition-stage briefing, is not summarized here; his positions above come from his response to the petition.* ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case TTUHSC argued the Court should grant review because the courts of appeals are split on an important question of statutory interpretation that bears on sovereign immunity and trial-court jurisdiction, the ruling below is incorrect on an important question the Court has not resolved, and the case is an ideal vehicle (Petition for Review, PDF p. 16). Mohrman argued review should be denied because the ruling is fact-bound, rests on settled common law, and the claimed conflict is overstated (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 11). ## Practice Area Tags governmental-immunity, medical-liability ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso); granted June 19, 2026. Oral argument: January 11, 2027. ## Amicus Involvement None --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/26-0085. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.