Texas Codes

Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102 (2026)

Initiation Of Action; Consent Required For Dismissal

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 36.102. INITIATION OF ACTION; CONSENT REQUIRED FOR DISMISSAL. (a) A person bringing an action under this subchapter shall serve a copy of the petition and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information the person possesses on the attorney general in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

(b) The petition shall be filed in camera and, except as provided by Subsection (c-1) or (d), shall remain under seal until at least the 180th day after the date the petition is filed or the date on which the state elects to intervene, whichever is earlier. The petition may not be served on the defendant until the court orders service on the defendant.

(c) The state may elect to intervene and proceed with the action not later than the 180th day after the date the attorney general receives the petition and the material evidence and information.

(c-1) At the time the state intervenes, the attorney general may file a motion with the court requesting that the petition remain under seal for an extended period.

(d) The state may, for good cause shown, move the court to extend the 180-day deadline under Subsection (b) or (c). A motion under this subsection may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera.

(e) An action under this subchapter may be dismissed only if the court and the attorney general consent in writing to the dismissal and state their reasons for consenting.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1153, Sec. 4.08, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 806 (S.B. 563), Sec. 10, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 97 (H.B. 2004), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2019.

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 97 (H.B. 2004), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2019.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Foster v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 587 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Tex. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States Ex Rel. Foster v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 587 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Tex. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Tex. Hum. Res.Code § 36.102(a) (Vernon 1997).”

Richard J. Malouf, DDS Richard J, Malouf, DDS, PC & Richard J. Malouf, DDS, PA v. State, 461 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App. 2015). “3d at 396 ; compare Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102 (addressing initiation of action by filing in camera petition and serving attorney general with petition to remain under seal for 180 days or until State intervénes and prohibiting service of petition on defendant until the court…”

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). · cites it 24× “V, § 21 498 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.101 499 Tex. Hum.”

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). · cites it 17× “3 Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.101 (a)....”

In Re AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). · cites it 7× “12 Statutes Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.102 .......”

In Re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “36-37, is overblown because the Act ensures that the Attorney General may review, take over, and oth- erwise control the lawsuit from its inception, Tex. Hum. Res. Code §§ 36.102, 36.107. Indeed, the Attorney General can dismiss a meritless action over the objec- tion of the qui…”

Frey v. Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc (N.D. Tex. 2022). · cites it 2× “Unseal, ¶ 5; Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(b). While Frey’s qui tam action was pending in state court, the State of Texas was also litigating a series of other lawsuits against various defendants—not including HMS—relating to Medicaid fraud, among other allegations (the “Xerox…”

The State of Texas Ex Rel. Joshua LaFountain v. BLT Mgmt. Co., LLC N/K/A BLT Support Servs., LLC (Tex. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “49 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.002(13)………………………………………………51 Tex.”

the State of Texas v. Christine Ellis, D.D.S. Alexandra Alvarez & Joshua LaFountain (Tex. App. 2022). “See Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102 (requiring qui tam petitions to be filed under seal under Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act).”

Frey v. Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc (N.D. Tex. 2023). “, 2; Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(b). Ultimately, the State of Texas and Frey entered a settlement agreement in which Frey signed a release of claims.”

In Re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “Tex. Hum. Res. Code §§ 36.102(c)–(e), .104(a)–(b), .”

State of Texas v. Alexandra Alvarez, Joshua LaFountain, & Dr. Christine Ellis, D.D.S. (2026). “Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(a). The State has the option to intervene in such a qui tam suit or decline to take over the action.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(a) — 6 cases

United States Ex Rel. Foster v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 587 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Tex. 2008). “” Tex. Hum. Res.Code § 36.102(a) (Vernon 1997).”

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “V, § 21 498 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.101 499 Tex. Hum.”

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “3 Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.101 (a)....”

In Re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “36-37, is overblown because the Act ensures that the Attorney General may review, take over, and oth- erwise control the lawsuit from its inception, Tex. Hum. Res. Code §§ 36.102, 36.107. Indeed, the Attorney General can dismiss a meritless action over the objec- tion of the qui…”

— Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(b) — 4 cases

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “V, § 21 498 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.101 499 Tex. Hum.”

Frey v. Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc (N.D. Tex. 2022). “Unseal, ¶ 5; Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(b). While Frey’s qui tam action was pending in state court, the State of Texas was also litigating a series of other lawsuits against various defendants—not including HMS—relating to Medicaid fraud, among other allegations (the “Xerox…”

The State of Texas Ex Rel. Joshua LaFountain v. BLT Mgmt. Co., LLC N/K/A BLT Support Servs., LLC (Tex. App. 2025). “49 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.002(13)………………………………………………51 Tex.”

— Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(c) — 5 cases

United States Ex Rel. Foster v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 587 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Tex. 2008). “” Tex. Hum. Res.Code § 36.102(a) (Vernon 1997).”

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “3 Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.101 (a)....”

In Re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “Tex. Hum. Res. Code §§ 36.102(c)–(e), .104(a)–(b), .”

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “V, § 21 498 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.101 499 Tex. Hum.”

— Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(d) — 1 case

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “V, § 21 498 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.101 499 Tex. Hum.”

— Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.102(e) — 3 cases

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “3 Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.101 (a)....”

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “V, § 21 498 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.101 499 Tex. Hum.”

In Re AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “12 Statutes Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.102 .......”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.