Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Albert Orosco filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for work-related injury to his right hand, wrist and forearm. Though agreeing that Orosco’s injury was work-related, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel nonetheless denied benefits due to Orosco’s failure to timely notify his employer. Two months later, Orosco filed another workers’ compensation claim for a work-related injury to his left arm. The workers’ compensation insurance carrier of Orosco’s employer, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, filed an appeal in the district court to challenge the TWCC’s determination that the right-arm injury was work-related. Orosco cross-appealed, challenging the finding on the untimeliness of his petition. Orosco filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Insurance did not have standing to appeal the TWCC decision because it was not “aggrieved” by the decision. Insurance moved to dismiss Orosco’s counterclaim because it wasn”t filed within the 40-day deadline. The trial court granted Orosco’s motion and denied Insurance’s motion. The trial court also awarded Orosco attorneys’ fees. The trial court severed Orosco’s counterclaim into a separate cause. HOLDING:Affirmed and dismissed. The court cites the Labor Code provision Orosco relies on: 410.251, which says that a “party that has exhausted its administrative remedies under this subtitle and that is aggrieved by a final decision of the appeals panel may seek judicial review” under the chapter. The court concludes that a party is aggrieved when the injury or loss resulting from the final decision is actual and immediate. Possible or future injury or loss is not sufficient. Here, TWCC awarded Insurance the ultimate relief it wanted by denying benefits. That Orosco might take the finding that his right-arm injury was work-related to bolster his claim that his left-arm injury is work-related raises only a possibility of future loss for Insurance. Therefore, Insurance is not aggrieved by the TWCC’s decision, so it does not have standing to bring its appeal. The court also upholds the award of attorneys’ fees to Orosco. The court finds that the trial court’s severance order did not render the trial court’s denial of Insurance’s motion to dismiss final since the order did not “dispose” of the counterclaim. Because the counterclaim remains pending, this court lacks jurisdiction over Insurance’s appeal from that order. OPINION:Marion, J.; L�pez, C.J., Marion and Speedlin, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.