claim is not brought under the Act. They further asserted that-Powell does not have immunity, but did not seek any relief beyond recognition of their theory. In the trial court and on appeal, the Knipps challenge only the third element of section 101.106(f) as to their negligence claim. Thus, our' analysis will likewise focus on that element, namely, by whom Powell was employed when he provided health care to James. Powell’s evidence is uncontroverted that he was “in the paid service” of UTSWMC and that all of his professional work, including his provision of health care to James, was within the scope of his contractual agreement with. UTSWMC. As a matter of law, UTSWMC is a “governmental unit” within the meaning of section 101.001(3) of the Act. See Franka, 332 S.W.3d at , 373 n. 15 (<HOLDING>); Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v.
recognizing the indicia of authority from a governmental unit to the authorized person to pursue some endeavor as common in the enumerated items recognizing utswmc as a governmental unit under the act 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 section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary 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