Court Rules Claimant Failed to Exhaust Remedies
The Dallas Court of Appeals has ordered a trial court to grant a workers’ compensation carrier’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss a substantial portion of the claimant’s suit for judicial review. The decision in In re: Zurich American Insurance Company, was issued December 20, 2017. The case was handled by Flahive, Ogden & Latson attorney, Jessica MacCarty.
In the underlying proceedings, the claimant (Mack) and the carrier (Zurich) attended a Contested Case Hearing. The hearing officer considered and ruled on three issues —extent of injury, MMI and IR. The hearing officer determined that the compensable injury did not extend to and include certain additional injuries alleged by Mack, concluded that Mack’s date of maximum medical improvement is June 4, 2013, and set her impairment rating at 2%.
Mack appealed to the Division’s appeals panel. Although the date of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating were issues the hearing officer decided, Mack appealed only the hearing officer’s decision on extent of injury. The appeals panel allowed the hearing officer’s decision to become final. Mack then requested judicial review solely on the issue of extent of injury. More than two years later, Mack amended her petition and added the issues of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating.
Zurich filed a plea to the jurisdiction and, alternatively, motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the issues of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating. Zurich based it plea on section 410.302(b) of the labor code, which states “[a] trial under this subchapter is limited to issues decided by the appeals panel and on which judicial review is sought.” TEX. LABOR CODE § 410.302(b). Zurich argued that, by failing to appeal the issues of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating, Mack failed to exhaust administrative remedies for those issues and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address those issues. In a March 22, 2017 order, the trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and the alternative motion for summary judgment.
Zurich filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which the Court of Appeals granted:
Here, Mack failed to seek review from the appeals panel of the issues of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating. She is, therefore, prohibited as a matter of law from pursuing review of those issues in the district court, and the trial court lacks jurisdiction over those issues. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Zurich’s plea to the jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ and direct the trial court to issue written rulings vacating the March 22, 2017 order denying Zurich’s plea to the jurisdiction and alternative motion for summary judgment, granting Zurich’s plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissing Mack’s appeal of the issues of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating.
The trial judge was ordered to correct his ruling within 15 days or the court stated that it will issue a formal order that he do so.
FOLIO
