No. 14-0256
Click for Official Page
The Court requested full merits briefing on June 27, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on February 27, 2015. It then denied rehearing on June 5, 2015 File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
Per Curiam OpinionView Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument N/A | Video N/A PDF
| Appellate District: | 7th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Denied |
| COA Docket No.: | 07-14-00013-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Brian P. Quinn |
| Trial Court: | 108th District Court |
| County: | Potter |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn |
| Trial Docket: | 94745-E |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-06-05 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed | Denied | |
| 2015-06-05 | Certified cys of cost bill sent to attys of record | ||
| 2015-04-17 | Letter Filed (Relator) | ||
| 2015-04-13 | Motion for Rehearing - Filed | ||
| 2015-04-13 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2015-03-06 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing disposed (Real Parties in Interest) | Filing granted | |
| 2015-03-06 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2015-02-27 | Opinion issued | Writ of Mandamus conditionally granted | |
| 2015-02-27 | MANDAMUS GRANT - 52.8 | ||
| 2015-02-27 | Petition for Writ of Mandamus disposed | Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 52.8(c) | |
| This case was pending on merits briefs between November 3, 2014 and February 27, 2015. | |||
| 2014-11-03 | Reply brief filed (Relator) | ||
| 2014-10-22 | Appendix Filed (Relator) | ||
| 2014-10-22 | Miscellaneous motion disposed. See Remarks. (Real Parties in Interest) | Filing granted | |
| 2014-10-17 | Miscellaneous motion filed. (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2014-10-17 | Brief filed (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2014-09-16 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. (Real Parties in Interest) | Filing granted | |
| 2014-09-16 | Motion for extension of time to file brief. (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2014-08-11 | Motion for extension of time to file brief. (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2014-08-11 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. (Real Parties in Interest) | Filing granted | |
| 2014-07-28 | Brief filed (Relator) | ||
| 2014-07-28 | Supplemental appendix (Relator) | ||
| 2014-06-27 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2014-06-13 | Reply to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Relator) | ||
| 2014-06-11 | Appendix Filed (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2014-06-09 | Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2014-05-28 | Miscellaneous motion disposed. See Remarks. | Filing granted | |
| 2014-05-28 | Miscellaneous motion filed. (Real Parties in Interest) | ||
| 2014-05-09 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2014-04-08 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2014-04-07 | Case Record Filed (Relator) | ||
| 2014-04-04 | Miscellaneous motion filed. (Relator) | ||
| 2014-04-04 | Case Record Filed (Relator) | ||
| 2014-04-04 | Miscellaneous motion disposed. See Remarks. (Relator) | Filing granted | |
| 2014-04-04 | Appendix to any instrument (Relator) | ||
| 2014-04-03 | Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hogan, Patsy |
|
Relator | ||||
| Crawford & Company Healthcare Management, Inc. |
|
Relator | ||||
| Crawford & Company |
|
Relator | ||||
| Old Republic Insurance Company |
|
Relator | ||||
| Johnson, Edward Glenn |
|
Real Party In Interest | ||||
| Johnson, Natalie |
|
Real Party In Interest |
A claimant for workers' compensation benefits brought a separate lawsuit against the carrier and some of its employees, contending that the way they had handled his claims independently violated tort and statutory duties, for which he sought damages.
The Division of Workers' Compensation has exclusive jurisiction over the underlying claim for workers' compensation benefits. Does that exclusive grant of jurisdiction extend to these other claims, which might fall outside of its ability to grant relief?
The Court held that it does. It explained that its previous decision in TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. TIMOTHY J. RUTTIGER, No. 08-0751 established a broad field of preemption for workers compensation, including challenges to the "investigation, handling, and settling" of claims for these benefits. The Court explained that Ruttiger was not to be read narrowly and, thus, that the claims here fell within the agency's exclusive jurisdiction.
