Court Dismisses Suit against DWC and its Hearing Officer

A Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of an injured worker’s suit against the Division of Workers’ Compensation and its Houston-area Hearing Officer on the grounds that neither had waived their sovereign immunity from suit. The case, Harlan v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, et al., No. 01-15-00479-CV (June 23, 2016) also affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the employee’s claims against the Division’s designated doctor.

Marvin ell Harlan, a middle-school math teacher, tripped and fell in the course and scope of her employment, hitting her head on a cement block. She was taken off work and began receiving TIBs. The Division eventually appointed a designated doctor, Dr. Ikedinobi Eni, who concluded that Harlan had reached maximum medical improvement by May 17, 2012, and that she had a whole-body impairment rating of 0%. Harlan contested this decision. After a contested-case hearing, Administrative Hearing Officer Jacque Coleman adopted the certification by the designated doctor. This was effectively a determination that Harlan was not entitled to further income benefits on her claims.

The Appeals Panel affirmed the decision. Harlan sought judicial review in the district court, filing suit against her self-insured employer, the Division, Dr. Eni, and Administrative Hearing Officer Coleman. The Division, Dr. Eni, and Coleman filed a plea to the jurisdiction, alleging immunity, and a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted both the plea to the jurisdiction and the Rule 91a motion. It severed these orders making the dismissal of Harlan’s claims against these defendants final. Harlan filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Harlan’s suit against the Division, it’s Hearing Officer, and the designated doctor were properly dismissed because each of these parties had statutory or governmental immunity from suit.

Sovereign immunity protects the State, its agencies, and their officers by affording them 4 immunity from suit and immunity from liability. See City of Houston v. Downstream Envtl., 444 S.W.3d 24, 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). . . . The Texas Department of Insurance is a state agency. TEX. LAB. CODE § 402.001. In her petition, Harlan did not plead any waivers of sovereign immunity. Thus, we conclude that the Division retained sovereign immunity. As such, the trial court properly granted the plea to the jurisdiction in favor of the Division.

Dr. Eni was the designated doctor, appointed by the Division to examine Harlan. See id. § 408.0041(a). . . . Under the Labor Code, the designated doctor “has the same immunity from liability as the commissioner.” Id. § 413.054. “The commissioner is not liable in a civil action for an act performed in good faith in the execution of duties as commissioner.” Id. § 402.00123. Nowhere in Harlan’s petition does she allege that Dr. Eni failed to act in good faith or acted in bad faith. . . . Harlan has pleaded no legal basis to overcome Dr. Eni’s statutory immunity from liability. TEX. LABOR CODE § 413.054. As such, her cause of action has no basis in law, and the trial court correctly dismissed the claims against him. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.

Coleman was the administrative hearing officer who presided over Harlan’s contested-case hearing. In her petition, Harlan alleged that Coleman signed the decision that was appealed and failed to grant continuances. Harlan also complained that Coleman refused to consider her evidence but did consider Dr. Eni’s report, noted Harlan’s disagreement with Dr. Eni’s findings in writing, erred by making a factual determination based on weighing the evidence, and advised the insurance carrier’s attorney to pay an overdue ambulance bill.

Generally, a public official sued in her official capacity is protected by the same sovereign immunity as the state agency she represents. See Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Tex. 2007); Downstream Envtl., 444 S.W.3d at 32. We already have determined that the trial court properly granted the plea to the jurisdiction in favor of the Division on the basis of sovereign immunity. As an employee and official of the Division, Coleman likewise was immune from suit. See Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d at 844; Downstream Envtl., 444 S.W.3d at 32. Coleman also was immune from suit because judicial immunity applies to administrative law judges and similar quasi-judicial officials. See Sledd v. Garrett, 128 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

The claimant’s suit for judicial review against the self-insured employer was severed and remains pending at the trial court.