 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cheatum v. Texas' Compensation Commission2/7/2001
Justice Farris
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and the University of Texas System (UTS). Wynthia Cheatum, an attorney, filed a suit against UTS for abuse of process after UTS disputed attorney's fee awarded to her for obtaining supplemental income benefits (SIB) for her client. She also sought declaratory judgment relief and brought a constitutional challenge to the application of certain sections of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, Texas Labor Code and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Rules. For the reasons below, we affirm in part and dismiss the remainder of the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Wynthia Cheatum represented Ellener Garrison, an injured employee/claimant in a worker's compensation claim. Cheatum was successful in obtaining Garrison's SIBS for the third and fourth quarter. Cheatum applied for attorney's fees for her representation of Garrison's third quarter. TWCC approved $1387.50 in attorney's fees. UTS disputed the attorneys fees, a hearing was held, and the attorney's fees were reduced to $622.50. Cheatum then billed for defending her attorney's fees, and TWCC approved $912.50 in attorney's fees. Again, UTS disputed the fees and another hearing was held. The attorney's fees were upheld in the amount of $912.50. UTS appealed the decision of the hearing officer and filed a request for review. The TWCC appeals panel reversed the decision of the hearing officer. Cheatum also applied for attorney's fees for her representation of Garrison in the fourth quarter. TWCC approved $1612.50 in attorneys fees. UTS also disputed these attorney's fees, a hearing was held, and the attorney's fees were reduced to $600.00. Cheatum billed for defending her attorney's fees, and TWCC approved $900.00 in attorneys fees. Following an appeal by UTS, the TWCC appeals panel reversed the attorney's fee order and rendered a take nothing order. Cheatum then filed two suits, one in Travis County seeking review of the appeals panel's decisions and another in Dallas County attacking the constitutionality of certain statutory provisions and claiming an abuse of process.
Initially, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann § 22.220 (Vernon 1988).
In Cheatum's second issue, she contends the trial court erred in its determination that Cheatum had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, the Texas Workers' Compensation rules, or the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeal Panel Decision No. 9362471.
A lack of standing deprives a court of jurisdiction because standing is an element of subject matter jurisdiction. See Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444-45 (Tex.1993). The Texas Open Courts Act protects access to the courts only for those suffering an injury:
"All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done her . . . shall have remedy by due course of law." Tex. Const. art. I, § 13 (emphasis added); see Tex. Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444. To establish standing, a party must show a justiciable interest, which requires that the party allege actual or imminent threat of injury peculiar to one's circumstances and not suffered by the public generally. Tex. Rivers Prot. Ass'n v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n, 910 S.W.2d 147, 151 (Tex. App._Austin 1995, writ denied). The injury may be economic, recreational, or environmental. City of Bells v. Greater Texoma Util. Auth., 790 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tex.App._Dallas 1990, writ denied). A plaintiff must plead facts that affirmatively demonstrate standing; that is, the plaintiff must affirmatively
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|