|
Federal and State Laws prohibit unfair debt collection practices. Many consumers do not realize that there is a statute of limitations on collecting these old debts. The debt collectors are disregarding these statutes of limitations and are harassing consumers in order to make them pay when the consumers no longer owe the debt. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
The debt collection harassment has gotten to be such a bad problem that the federal government passed a law to protect consumers from these collectors. We have seen cases come in the office where the debt collector, who is usually on a commission, has threatened the consumer with being arrested, has contacted the consumer’s neighbors and relatives, has called the consumer’s work and made bad comments to the consumer’s supervisors or coworkers, and has used threatening or foul language and repeated phone calls at odd hours to harass the consumer (a violation under the Texas Penal Code).
If you have a debt collector harassing you, it is possible to pursue the debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Texas State Law
Texas state law also provides common law and statutory protections against unfair debt collection. Texas statutory law provides for recovery of attorney fees and penalties to be paid by the debt collector as damages. Texas common law allows you to recover additional damages caused by the debt collector’s harassment. We use the combination of the state and federal law to protect you from the collection harassment. We also see debt collectors who do not have the required bond and licensing in Texas to even engage in debt collection in the state.
Prohibited Practices
Debt collectors are not allowed to use threats of violence or harm, publish a list of names of people who refuse to pay the debt, use obscene or profane language, or repeatedly use the phone to annoy you.
Debt collectors are not allowed to lie when they are trying to collect the debt. They are not allowed to:
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Fort Worth, Texas civil litigation attorneys in Tarrant County who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.  ![texas[2]](https://texasdefensecounsel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/texas2.gif)
|
New DWC Form-154, Workers’ Compensation Complaint Form
The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (TDI-DWC) has finalized new DWC Form-154,
Workers’ Compensation Complaint Form.
Title 28 Texas Administrative Code §180.2(a) states that any person may submit a complaint to TDI-DWC for alleged administrative
violations. Labor Code §402.023(c) states, in part, that TDI-DWC shall develop and post on its website a simple, standardized
form for filing complaints. New DWC-Form-154 provides a simple, standardized form for the filing of workers’ compensation
complaints and may be submitted via email, fax, or mail. A person may also submit a complaint without using the form through
TDI-DWC’s website, email, fax, written correspondence, or in person.
An informal draft of DWC Form-154 was posted on the TDI-DWC website on December 11, 2015, with an informal comment
period ending on January 4, 2016. The finalized DWC Form-154 is available in English and Spanish on the TDI-DWC website at
http://www.tdi.texas.gov/forms/form20numeric.html, and is effective March 1, 2016.
New DWC Form-154, Workers’ Compensation Complaint Form
The Limited Settlement Options in a Texas Workers’ Compensation Claim–Texas Insurance Defense Attorneys
The Workers’ Compensation Act provides a four-step dispute resolution process—a benefit review conference, a contested case hearing, review by an administrative appeals panel, and judicial review. Tex. Lab. Code §§ 410.021, 410.151, 410.202, Tex. Lab. Code § 410.251; see generally Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430, 437 (Tex. 2012). At each step, settlements are tightly controlled and limited. First, there is the benefit review conference, a non-adversarial, informal dispute resolution proceeding to discuss the facts, review available information to evaluate the claim, delineate the disputed issues, and, if possible, “resolve disputed issues by agreement of the parties in accordance with this subtitle and the policies of the division.” Tex. Lab. Code § 410.021. An agreement or settlement should be reduced to writing and signed by the parties and the benefit review officer, and the settlement does not take effect until “it is approved by the director in accordance with section 408.005.” Tex. Lab. Code § 410.029. Section 408.005 provides further that “[a] settlement must be signed by the commissioner and all parties to the dispute,” and that “the commissioner shall approve a settlement if the commissioner is satisfied that . . . the settlement reflects adherence to all appropriate provisions of law and the 6 policies of the division.” Tex. Lab. Code § 408.005(d), 408.005(e)(2).
Thus, at the very first step, settlements must adhere to all appropriate provisions of law. If the benefit review conference fails to produce a settlement, the matter proceeds to a contested-case hearing that is generally limited to the issues raised at the benefit review conference. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.151(b). After a hearing, the hearing officer issues a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and determines whether benefits are due, and awards benefits due. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.168. Then the matter may proceed to an appeals panel that considers the record and the hearing officer’s decision. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.203. The decision of the appeals panel is final in the absence of a timely appeal for judicial review. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.205. Last, an aggrieved party may seek judicial review of the final decision of the appeals panel “regarding compensability or eligibility for or the amount of income or death benefits.” Tex. Lab. Code § 410.301(a). At this last stage settlements are still tightly controlled and limited: The party who initiated the proceeding must file any proposed judgment or settlement made by the parties to the proceeding, including a proposed default judgment, with the division not later than the 30th day before the date on which the court is scheduled to enter the judgment or approve the settlement. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.258(a).
The commissioner shall review the proposed judgment or settlement to determine compliance with all appropriate provisions of the law. If the commissioner determines that the proposal is not in compliance with the law, the division may intervene as a matter of right in the proceeding not later than the 30th day after the date of receipt of the proposed judgment or settlement. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.258(c). If the division intervenes in the proceeding, the commissioner shall inform the court of each reason the commissioner believes the proposed judgment or settlement is not in compliance with the law. The court shall give full consideration to the information provided by the commissioner before entering a judgment or approving a settlement. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.258(e). Ultimately, the court may not approve a settlement except on a finding that “the settlement adheres to all appropriate provisions of the law,” Tex. Lab. Code § 410.256(b)(2), and “[s]ettlement of a claim or issue must be in compliance with all appropriate provisions of the law.” Tex. Lab. Code 410.256(g). Otherwise the settlement is void. Id. Notably, the restrictions on settlements apply equally across the four-step process: before the Division and a court, a settlement should only be approved if (1) the settlement accurately reflects the agreement between the parties; (2) the settlement adheres to all appropriate provisions of the law; and (3) under the law and facts, the settlement is in the best interest of the claimant. Compare Tex. Lab. Code § 408.005(e) with Tex. Labor Code § 410.256(b). Additionally, the requirement that settlements adhere to the law is mandatory because subsection 410.256(g) specifies that settlements that do not comply with section 410.256’s requirements are void. See Tex. Lab. Code § 410.256(g); see generally Crosstex Energy Servs. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384, 392 (Tex. 2014) (discussing when statutes are mandatory). Thus, in matters of workers’ compensation, settlements are tightly controlled and limited, and settlements must comply with all appropriate provisions of the law.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Fort Worth, Texas civil litigation attorneys in Tarrant County who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.