Must Specifically Plead To Invoke The Trial Court’s Jurisdiction To Render Judgment For Attorney Fees–Texas Workers’ Compensation Attorneys

ATTORNEY FEES in Texas Workers’ Compensation Cases–Pleadings

Even In a SIBs Case, Claimant Must Specifically Plead For Fees To Invoke The Trial Court’s Jurisdiction To Render Judgment For Attorney Fees
Rodriguez v. Ysleta Independent School District,, 2001 WL 125874 (Tex.App.-El Paso)
February 15, 2001

Claimant was denied SIBs by the Hearing Officer, and that decision was affirmed by the AP. Rodriguez pursued that quarter to District Court where he prevailed. However, he did not plead for attorney fees. The judge denied his request for carrier-pay fees.
The appellate court stated that there are only two exceptions to the rule that fees are to be paid “from the Claimant’s recovery”: where an insurance carrier unsuccessfully challenges a Commission order awarding SIBs, or when suing to enforce a final order of the Commission, with which the carrier has failed to comply. Neither exception of the Act applied in this case because the Carrier won at the administrative level.
Because the statute did not expressly provide for attorney fees in this situation, those fees must have been requested in the pleadings.

 

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 workers’ compensation insurance defense lawyers 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.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Attorney’s Fees-Lump Sum Permitted In Death Case Should Be Based On Present Value Of Future Benefits–Texas Workers’ Compensation Lawyers

ATTORNEY FEES–TEXAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAWYERS
Lump Sum Permitted In Death Case Should Be Based On Present Value Of Future Benefits
Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund v. Simon 1998 WL 538231 (Tex. App – San Antonio) August 26, 1998
The San Antonio Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion of June 3, 1998, and substituted this opinion to clarify that summary judgment motions were denied and that if Mrs. Simon is successful at trial, any damages award will be under the 1989 Act.
The Court stated again that the issue of whether the TWCIF waived its right to raise a causation issue had not been raised at the BRC or CCH and, therefore, could not be raised on appeal to civil court.
The issue in the case was whether Mr. Simon’s bee sting at the Damco Repair Shop that resulted in his death arose out of his employment. TWCIF introduced affidavits concerning the current conditions in the shop and Simon’s predisposition to react to bee stings. The Court stated that an affidavit of current conditions was not sufficient summary judgment evidence because it did not speak to the conditions in the Damco Repair Shop at the time of the incident. The Court also stated that a pre-existing condition such as a predisposition to a severe allergic reaction to a bee sting will not preclude compensation.
The Court distinguished this case from the Bratcher case at 823 S.W. 2d 720. Bratcher died of an aneurysm while straining to have a bowel movement. The Court in Bratcher denied recovery because the strain could have occurred at any time and there was no causal connection between the injury and the employment. In this case, however, there was evidence of an injury incident to employment.
With respect to attorney fees, the court stated that any lump sum attorney fees in the event Mrs. Simon prevails at trial, would be based on 25% of the present value of future benefits.

 

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 workers’ compensation defense lawyers 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.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Fort Worth–Attorney’s Fees in Texas Workers’ Compensation Subrogation Law–Awarded to Claimant’s Attorney From State’s Recovery

TEXAS ATTORNEY FEES IN FORT WORTH–SUBROGATION LAW
In Subrogation/Awarded Claimant’s Attorney From State of Texas Recovery
Texas Depart Of Transportation v. Wilson 1998 WL 784033 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth) Nov. 12, 1998
Wilson, a TXDOT employee, was involved in an auto accident with King. Wilson’s attorney, Wood, filed suit against King for negligence and King’s Carrier settled the lawsuit for $75,000. The Attorney General then intervened to collect its $70,000 subrogation lien. The Trial Court relied on Section 417.003 and distributed over $20,000 in attorney fees to Wood.
The Court of Appeals for Fort Worth affirmed. The State is treated as an insurance carrier for workers’ compensation purposes. The Attorney General complained that, under Section 417.003(a), a private attorney must be retained by a state agency before he can receive payment. The Court responded, however, that under Section 417.003(c), the Court can apportion part of the insurance carrier’s subrogration recovery as attorney fees for the employee’s attorney and attorney fees for the insurance carrier’s attorney if the carrier’s attorney actively participated in obtaining the subrogration recovery. Here, the Attorney General was awarded some fees and the Court deemed that those fees were earned by representing the Attorney General and that Wood’s fees were earned while representing Wilson.

 

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 subrogation lawyers 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.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Attorney’s Fees Not Recoverable When No Party Prevails On SIB’s In Texas Workers’ Compensation Attorney’s Fees case

ATTORNEY FEES
Texas Attorney’s Fee in Workers’ Compensation Case Not Recoverable When No Party Prevails On SIB’s
Cigna Ins. Co. Of Texas vs. Middleton, 2001 WL 1557791 (Tex.App.-Eastland)
December 6, 2001
In this Texas Workers’ Compensation Attorney’s Fees case, the court ruled that attorney fees are not to be recovered by the claimant in an impairment rating dispute. In this case, Middleton II, the parties had each appealed TWCC determinations on SIBs into district court. All of the cases were consolidated. Both parties nonsuited the SIBs issues, and the carrier appealed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the claimant. Because the underlying SIBs issues were nonsuited, the court ruled that there was no basis to award attorney fees. Attorney fees may only be awarded to the claimant when the claimant prevails in a SIBs dispute.

 

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 workers’ compensation defense lawyers 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.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Basis for Insurance Premiums-NIOSH–Fort Worth, Texas Workers’ Compensation Defense Attorneys

Basis for Insurance Premiums

Throughout the history of workers’ compensation in the U.S., premiums for insurance policies have been determined by a set of factors related to
employer risks, primarily the mix of occupational classes they employ. Employers are assigned to work classifications according to state-sanctioned
rating bureau guidelines. In general, employers in classifications with greater injury and illness risks and loss costs have higher “manual rates.”
For example, a roofing contractor generally has a higher manual rate than a bank. Recommended or specified manual rates must be approved by
the state regulators in most cases. Additionally, those employers which qualify for experience rating and that have a history of greater injury
and illness claims and costs within the risk classes are charged even higher premiums through the application of an experience modification factor.
Those employers with fewer claims and lower loss costs benefit from lower premiums.

 

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 workers’ comp defense 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.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Participation Of Attorneys In Workers’ Compensation Lawsuit–Texas Workers’ Compensation Attorneys

TEXAS ATTORNEYS AND ATTORNEY FEES IN WORKERS’ COMP LAWSUIT
Participation Of Attorneys In Workers’ Compensation Claims
TWCC v. Texas Builders’ Insurance Company, 1999 WL 394876 (Tex. App. – Austin) June 17, 1999
A Texas workers’ compensation claimant sought compensation for on-the-job injuries and was successful before the TWCC. TBIC filed suit and when Guerro failed to answer, TBIC was given a no-answer default judgment. The TWCC then denied TBIC’s claim for reimbursement from the Subsequent Injury Fund because the modification of the Appeals Panel order came as a result of a default judgment rather than a trial on the merits. The trial court determined that the TBIC was entitled to reimbursement.
The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed and discussed the language of Section 410.205(c), the applicable provision in this case. The Court also discussed the fact that the Legislature has addressed the situation in this case by enacting Section 410.257(e).
With respect to attorneys and attorney fees, the Court reiterated language from the Garcia case concerning participation of attorneys in workers’ compensation cases.

 

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 workers’ compensation defense 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.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Attorneys Fees in Texas Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Case–Texas Employment Attorneys

ATTORNEY FEES
Not Recoverable In A Retaliatory Discharge Case
Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, 1999 WL 450681 (Tex.)
In this Texas workers’ compensation retaliation case, The Supreme Court of Texas stated that there is no recovery of attorney fees by a prevailing party from an opposing party unless permitted by statute or contract between the parties. Article 8307c of the prior workers’ compensation act did not specifically permit recovery of attorney fees. For that reason, the Court reversed and deleted the award of fees to Plaintiff”s attorney.

 

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

TARRANT COUNTY, FORT WORTH CIVIL LITIGATION–TEXAS ATTORNEY FEES CLAIM

TARRANT COUNTY, FORT WORTH LITIGATION–TEXAS ATTORNEY FEES CLAIM
Awarded In SIBs Case Where Claimant Prevails On Subsequent Quarters
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Montana, 2001 WL 667826 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth) June 14, 2001

This was a workers’ compensation defense case in Fort Worth, Texas. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission determined that the Claimant was entitled to SIBs for the first quarter. Thereafter, the Carrier disputed entitlement to the sixth and seventh quarters. Claimant lost the sixth and seventh quarters of SIBs before the HO and the Appeals Panel (AP), but won in a jury trial. The Carrier appealed the trial court’s award of attorney fees. The company insurance attorneys in this Fort Worth case argued that the Texas statutes did not allow Claimant to recover.
The Carrier contends that because the Commission did not find entitlement to these quarters, it should not be liable for attorney fees since §408.147(c) says fees are awarded to a successful claimant when “an insurance carrier disputes a Commission determination” of entitlement.
The Court reviewed AP decisions and found them to be consistent with the plain meaning of the statute, determining that the statute authorizes an award of attorney fees in any case where the Commission initially awards SIBs and the carrier later disputes that award as long as the employee eventually prevails on any disputed issue.

 

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Mandatory Venue For Texas Attorney Fee Only Disputes In Travis County District Court–Texas Workers’ Compensation Lawyers

ATTORNEY FEES / VENUE
Mandatory Venue For Attorney Fee Only Disputes Is In Travis County District Court And Must Be Filed Within 30 Days, Not 40 Days
In re Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, 2005 Tex.App.Lexis 5124 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005)

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded attorney fees to a beneficiary and The Carrier Hartford appealed. The TWCC Appeals Panel reversed that decision and the beneficiary filed for judicial review in the county that the claimant lived in on the date of injury. Hartford sought a transfer of venue pursuant to Texas Government Code 2001.176. Tex. Labor Code §410.255 states that all issues other than those covered under §410.301 shall be conducted in accordance with Tex. Gov’t Code ch. 2001, which contains a 30 day statute of limitations and mandatory venue in Travis County district court.
The court determined that a TWCC AP decision dealing only with attorney fees is not a decision regarding compensability or eligibility for or the amount of income or death benefits. Therefore, the case is subject to the Tex. Gov’t Code ch. 2001 provisions.

 

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

General Contractor Protected From Tort Liability Under Section 406.123 Based On Agreement With Subcontractor–Ft. Worth, Texas Employment Law Defense Attorneys

Texas Non Subscriber Defense Law

 

IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
General Contractor Protected From Tort Liability Under Section 406.123 Based On Agreement With Subcontractor
Williams v. Brown & Root Inc. 1997 WL 297750 (Tex. App.- Texarkana, June 6, 1997)
Texas Eastman Company was a general contractor that subcontracted work to Brown and Root. Brown and Root in turn subcontracted work to Tracer Construction Company. Williams sustained a work-related injury as a Tracer employee when he slipped on some stairs and was paid workers’ compensation. Williams then sued Brown and Root for negligently permitting the stairs to be slippery. Brown and Root had an agreement to provide workers’ compensation for Tracer through Eastman’s “Owner Controlled Insurance Program”.
The Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in Brown and Root’s favor.
Under Section 406.123, workers’ compensation tort immunity is extended to the general contractor for “providing” workers’ compensation insurance. It is not necessary that the general contractor “pay” for that insurance.

 

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]