 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. Moore3/22/2001
I. Introduction
In this appeal we are asked to determine whether, under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, a worker 's compensation carrier is entitled, as a matter of law, to a proportionate reduction in the award of supplemental income benefits equal to the percentage of reduction of impairment income benefits for a prior compensable injury. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that Appellant is entitled, as a matter of law, to contribution in the amount of an 11/17ths reduction of Appellee's supplemental income benefits.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
Appellee John H. Moore filed a workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury suffered on June 29, 1994, while in the course and scope of his employment with General Motors. Appellant Insurance Company of Pennsylvania requested that the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission ("Commission") determine the percentage of contribution for a prior compensable injury sustained by Appellee on May 21, 1991.
A benefit contested-case hearing was held to determine the amount by which Appellant was entitled to reduce Appellee's impairment income benefits (IIBs) and supplemental income benefits (SIBs) based upon the prior compensable injury. The hearing officer found Appellant was entitled to reduce Appellee's IIBs by 11/17ths based upon the earlier compensable injury. However, the hearing officer did not allow Appellant to reduce Appellee's SIBs for the prior injury.
The decision of the hearing officer was appealed to the Commission Appeals Panel. The Appeals Panel failed to act on the appeal. Consequently, the decision of the contested case hearing officer became final by operation of law.
Appellant filed suit in State district court challenging the Commission Appeals Panel's determination that it was not entitled to a proportionate reduction of SIBs for the prior compensable injury. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment, which called into question the interpretation of section 408.084 of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ยง 408.084 (Vernon 1996). Appellant's motion requested the trial court to determine that section 408.084 entitled it to a proportionate reduction of SIBs in the same proportion that was found applicable to IIBs. Appellee moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Appellant had not properly preserved the issue of the amount of contribution in its pleadings and that Appellant was not entitled to a proportionate reduction of SIBs. The trial court denied Appellant's motion for summary judgment and granted Appellee's motion without specifying the basis for its ruling.
III. Issues
In two issues, Appellant contends the trial court erred in granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment and denying it's motion for summary judgment because (1) as a matter of law, Appellant is entitled to an 11/ 17ths contribution towards SIBs and (2) that Appellant's pleadings adequately preserved the issues presented to the Commission.
IV. Discussion
A. Preservation of Error
At the outset, we agree with Appellant that it adequately preserved for appeal the sole issue in this case: whether Appellant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a proportionate reduction of SIBs equal to the percentage of reduction awarded for IIBs for Appellee's prior injury. This issue was raised and tried via the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. We reject Appellee's contention that the amount of contribution was not preserved by Appellant's pleadings.
B. Standard of Review-Cross-motions for Summary Judgment
When both
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|