Claimant’s Appeal Dismissed for Lack of a Final Judgment
A Texas Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal of an injured worker because the judgment was not found to be final and appealable. Accordingly, the court did not reach the merits of the claimant’s complaints.
In Griffin v. American Zurich Insurance Co., No. 05-14-01510-CV (July 26, 2016), the claimant had appealed from a Division decision involving extent of injury, MMI and IR. The Hearing Officer had determined that Griffin had failed to show a causal link between the compensable injury event and the disputed injuries, Griffin’s on-the-job injury was limited to the soft tissue injuries, and Griffin had reached maximum medical improvement on April 26, 2012 with a zero percent impairment rating. An Appeals Panel affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision.
Griffin filed suit for judicial review of the Division’s decision. Griffin’s petition included complaints that (1) the evidence did not support the Division’s decision, (2) Zurich waived its right to contest whether his injuries were compensable, (3) he was denied his rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, (4) the Division’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, and (5) the Division exceeded its statutory authority.
Zurich filed a No-Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment each seeking summary judgment on a discrete issue. In its no-evidence motion, Zurich asserted Griffin could not present any evidence at trial to prove his compensable injuries extended beyond those found by the Division. In its traditional motion, Zurich asserted the trial court was required to adopt the impairment rating presented to the Division by the designated doctor because Griffin had reached statutory maximum medical improvement during the pendency of the action. Neither motion requested the trial court to render judgment disposing of the whole case.
Following a hearing, the trial court signed two separate orders, each stating only that the respective motion was “granted.” The trial court did not affirm the Division’s decision, order Griffin take-nothing, dismiss Griffin’s claims, or otherwise expressly dispose of Griffin’s suit for judicial review.
The court of appeals questioned on its own motion whether the orders on summary judgment were final and appealable. It concluded that they were not.
Here, neither summary judgment order expressly disposed of Griffin’s suit for judicial review by, for example, rendering judgment that he take nothing or by affirming the Division’s decision. Nor does either order state with “unmistakable clarity” that it is a final judgment or contain any other indicia of finality. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; Florance v. State, 352 S.W.3d 867, 871 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). Further, after reviewing Griffin’s pleadings and the motions for summary judgments, we cannot conclude the trial court’s orders expressly disposed of all the legal issues presented in Griffin’s suit. For example, Zurich’s motions did not address, and therefore the trial court did not rule on, Griffin’s procedural or constitutional complaints or his complaint that Zurich could not challenge whether his injuries were compensable. Because neither summary judgment order expressly disposed of Griffin’s suit and the orders do not together expressly dispose of all the issues Griffin asserted in the suit, the orders do not constitute a final judgment. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.
The court found that the presumption of finality does not apply to summary judgments because it is probable “that any judgment rendered prior to a full-blown trial is intended to dispose of only part of the case.” The case was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
FOLIO
