to the effect that the district “assumes liability” and “is liable” for expenses — our holding would be at odds with the Legislature’s plainly expressed intent that statutes not be construed as waiving immunity unless there is clear and unambiguous waiver language in the statute. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.034 (“[A] statute shall not be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity unless the waiver is effected by clear and unambiguous language.”); id. § 311.016 (providing that use of the word “shall” in a statute imposes a duty absent another meaning from the context or specific statutory provision). The language THA references is not a clear and unambiguous waiver of hospital districts’ immunity from suit for the type claim it makes. Cf. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 146 S.W.3d at 643-44 (<HOLDING>). Nor does the whole of the referenced
holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that a statutes requirement that compensation shall be made does not alone waive immunity holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity holding that an act of legislature may be required to waive sovereign immunity holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity