Texas Supreme Court Requests Full Briefing in SIBs Agreement Case

The Supreme Court of Texas has requested that the parties file briefs on the merits in a high profile workers’ compensation case. The request from the court in Texas Dept. of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation v. Jones, et al., (No. 15-0025), came on September 4, 2015.The court of appeals’ opinion can be found here.

The issue: Legality of an agreement resolving a case on judicial review. The parties to the case compromised the carrier’s liability for a single disputed quarter of SIBs by agreeing that the carrier would pay the quarter, but at one-half of the SIBs monthly rate to which the claimant would otherwise be entitled. The Division intervened, objecting to the agreement, arguing that the proposed agreement violated statutory and regulatory requirements.

The specific controversy: Whether an agreement between carrier and claimant to compromise the carrier’s SIBs liability for something less than 100% of the benefit amount is consistent with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.

The decision will impact whether and how parties can resolve cases that have been appealed to district court after Division resolution through the CCH/appeals panel process. The reach of the case may even extend to how such cases can be resolved by the parties at the Division level.

The meaning of the court’s action: The case was filed in the Supreme Court on January 12, 2015. A petition, response and reply have been filed, and now the court has requested that the parties file full briefs on the merits of the dispute. Because the Supreme Court of Texas is a court of limited jurisdiction, the filing of a case with that court does not necessarily mean that the case will be decided by that court. In fact, the court declines to hear the overwhelming majority of the cases filed with the court each year. However, approximately one in three cases are decided by the court when full briefing is requested.

The Texas Civil Justice League has filed an amicus curiae letter with the court urging support for the Division’s arguments.