employer could be held to be vicariously liable for their individual but separate acts of negligence. Under this analysis, we do not believe that the claims being asserted against Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center involve “the same subject matter” as the claims that were previously asserted against Doctors Laski, Cobb, Ball, Mulkey, Ford or Yarbrough. Therefore, under these circumstances, subsection 101.106(b) is inapplicable and does not operate to bar those claims. Furthermore, even if subsection 101.106(b) were applicable to the claims being asserted by Appellees, Mission Con-sol. does not support Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center’s attempt to use subsections 101.106(b) and 101.106(e) seri-atim to dismiss the entire suit. See Mission Consol, 253 S.W.3d at 657 (<HOLDING>). When a claimant files suit against both a
recognizing utswmc as a governmental unit under the act holding that recovery against an individual employee is barred and may be sought against the governmental unit only  when suit is filed against both the governmental unit and its employee id  101106e holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that while qui tam actions by private parties could be on behalf of or for a governmental unit they are not actions by a governmental unit as required by the bankruptcy code holding that a section 1983 failuretotrain claim cannot be maintained against a governmental employer in a case where there is no underlying constitutional violation by the employee