 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. King6/8/2005
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania ("ICSP") appeals the trial court's dismissal of its appeal for want of jurisdiction. ICSP raises three issues on appeal. We reverse and remand.
Background
Gregory S. King brought a claim seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury he allegedly received on or about July 9, 1993. His employer had workers' compensation insurance coverage through ICSP. On January 8, 2002, Robert Bond, a hearing officer for the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, issued a decisionfinding, among other things, that King suffered a compensable injury on July 9, 1993 that was a producing cause of his subsequently-realized back problems. ICSP appealed the Commission's decision, and the appeals panel of the Commission affirmed the findings.
On April 16, within forty days of the appeals panel's decision, ICSP sought judicial review of the panel's determination in accordance with Texas Labor Code, section 410.251 by filing its original petition in the 145th Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas. However, King, in fact, resided in Rusk County at the time of his alleged injury, although his mailing address was in Nacogdoches County. Thus, the parties sought to transfer venue to Rusk County by agreed motion filed August 5, 2002. The case was transferred to Rusk County on September 18, 2002. Finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the 4th District Court of Rusk County, Texas dismissed the case on March 23, 2004. The court further awarded attorney's fees to King pursuant to Texas Labor Code, section 408.221(c). This appeal followed.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In its first issue, ICSP argues that the trial court improperly relied on Argonaut Southwest Ins. Co. v. Walker, 64 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2001, pet. denied) to support its determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the matter. A party may seek judicial review by filing suit not later than the fortieth day after the date on which the decision of the appeals panel was filed with the division by filing a petition in the county where the employee resided at the time of the injury. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ยง 410.252(a), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2004--05). In Walker, the court held that the requirements of Section 410.252 are mandatory and jurisdictional. See Walker, 64 S.W.3d at 657.
ICSP argues that Walker and other cases holding that Section 410.252 is jurisdictional fail to consider the Texas Supreme Court's holding in Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 76 (Tex. 2000). In Dubai, the supreme court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's wrongful death cause of action by virtue of its general jurisdiction despite the fact that the plaintiff had failed to meet certain statutory prerequisites for filing his lawsuit. Id. In so doing, the court overruled Mingus v. Wadley, 115 Tex. 551, 285 S.W. 1084 (1926) to the extent that it generally characterized the plaintiff's failure to establish a statutory prerequisite as jurisdictional. See Dubai, 12 S.W.3d at 76.
In Mingus, the court held that the technical requirements of a statutory cause of action created in derogation of the common law are jurisdictional. See Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Hafley, 96 S.W.3d 469, 472 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, no pet.). Mingus, like Hafley and the instant case, involved a challenge to a workers' compensation award. See Mingus, 285 S.W. at 1086; Hafley, 96 S.W.3d at 472. The then-current statute provided several statutory prerequisites to appeal from the Industrial Accident Board's determinations, including a venue requirement that suit be brought "in the county where the
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|