X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision If the overpayment of the temporary income benefits was due to the city’s mistake, recoupment is not authorized by the statute or rules of the Texas Worker’ Compensation Commission. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the status quo to be preserved should not permit the recoupment to continue. FACTS:The city of San Antonio began paying David Vakey, a paramedic, “line-of-duty” pay for injuries he suffered over his years of service. In addition to that pay, the city, which does not subscribe the workers’ compensation system, paid Vakey the equivalent temporary income benefits. The city then began deducting small amounts from Vakey’s paycheck to reimburse itself for the temporary benefits. Four years later, Vakey obtained a temporary restraining order preventing further deductions. Subsequently, a trial court granted a temporary injunction. The city appeals, arguing: 1. Vakey did not prove a probable right of recovery; 2. Vakey did not prove a probable, imminent, irreparable injury; and 3. the injunction changed the status quo. HOLDING:Affirmed. The city cites several provisions of the Labor Code to support its position that it was allowed to recoup its payments. Relying on the code provisions and opinions issued by the attorney general and the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, the court notes that a governmental entity is allowed to offset amounts paid in temporary income benefits by the amounts paid for line-of-duty pay, but that the offset is supposed to be taken from the line-of-pay benefits, not the temporary income benefits. Further relying on the AG and TWCC opinions, the court concludes that while “the City may be able to establish at trial that its payment of the temporary income benefits was not the result of a mistake and that it intended to offset the payments, we cannot conclude from the record before us that the trial court abused its discretion in deciding that Vakey had a probable right of recovery.” Vakey proved the existence of a probably, imminent and irreparable injury, the court rules, because the city plans to continue its recoupment deductions, which may reduce Vakey’s pay to the point that he could no longer afford his apartment. Further, the trial court could have concluded that damages awarded at trial would not completely compensate Vakey for the hardships caused by the reduced pay; and, the trial court could have concluded that the hardships cannot be measured by a certain pecuniary standard. Finally, the court confirms that the temporary injunction preventing the city from making further deductions preserves that last peaceable status quo, which was full pay without deductions possibly made because of the city’s mistake. OPINION:Stone, J.; Stone, Duncan and Marion, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.