Court of Appeals Concludes that Heart Attack Judgment for Claimant was Void for Lack of Notice to DWC

A Houston Court of Appeals has determined that a judgment in favor of an injured worker should not have been signed by the trial court because it had not been served on the Division of Workers’ Compensation for a least 30 days. The decision Harris County, Self-Insured. v. Dogan. (Tex. Ct. App.—Houston [1^st Dist.], No. 01-19-01006-CV) September 16, 2021, concluded that the trial court had no jurisdiction to sign the judgment because of the error.

On March 9, 2016, claimant suffered a heart attack after running a mile as part of his training to become a Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputy. He was taken by ambulance to an emergency room, and later, he underwent heart catheterization and the placement of four stents.

Claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. A contested case hearing was held, specifically addressing whether the physical stress and exertion of the work-related training exercises rather than the natural progression of claimant’s underlying heart disease was a substantial factor in bringing about the heart attack. The ALJ concluded that claimant’s heart attack was not caused by a specific event occurring in the course and scope of his employment, the preponderance of the medical evidence indicated that the work was not a substantial contributing factor of the attack, and the preponderance of medical evidence indicated that claimant’s heart attack was a result of a preexisting condition and the natural progression of that pre-existing condition. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that claimant “did not sustain a compensable heart attack on March 9, 2016.” The appeals panel affirmed that decision.

Claimant filed suit for judicial review. A jury found that he had sustained a compensable heart attack and, therefore, received an injury in the course and scope of his employment. On August 30, 3019, claimant moved for entry of judgment on the verdict and attached a proposed final judgment. He served the motion and proposed final judgment on the General Counsel for the Division. On September 23, 2019, claimant requested that the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law and filed a second, revised proposed final judgment, which was served on the Division. Seven days later, the trial court signed this judgment concluding that claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of a heart attack and that he was disabled.

Harris County appealed, arguing the judgment was void. The Court of Appeals agreed. The court observed that § 410.258(a) of the Texas Labor Code provides:

The party who initiated a proceeding under this subchapter [Subchapter F. Judicial Review—General Provisions] or Subchapter G [Subchapter G. Judicial Review of Issues Regarding Compensability or Income or Death Benefits] must file any proposed judgment or settlement, including a proposed default judgment or proposed agreed judgment, with the [D]ivision not later than the 30th day before the date on which the court is scheduled to enter the judgment or approve the settlement.

The court noted that under § 410.258(f), “A judgment entered or settlement approved without complying with the requirements of this section is void.”

The court observed that some courts of appeals have held that the requirement to notify the Division of a final judgment does not apply to those judgments entered after fully adversarial proceedings, such as contested summary-judgment motions or a trial. However, it wrote that the First Court of Appeals has held that compliance with the notice provision of section 410.258 “is both mandatory and jurisdictional, and that failure to give the required notice renders a judgment void.” Metro. Transit Auth. v. Jackson, 212 S.W.3d 797, 800–01 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied).

We have held that the notice requirement applies “in all cases” and that “regardless of whether the trial court renders judgment after an adversarial proceeding . . . the party initiating judicial review of the Division’s decision must send notice of the proposed judgment to the Division pursuant to section 410.258 or the trial court’s judgment is void.”

Concluding that the underlying judgment was void, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.