Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:After suffering an on-the-job back injury, Stan Horton began receiving treatment from Dr. Merrimon Baker in Jasper County. During this treatment period, The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission revoked Baker’s status as a physician approved to treat compensation claimants. Horton sued the TWCC for an injunction preventing the commission from revoking Baker’s status. Horton claimed that there were no other physicians in Jasper County who could treat spinal injuries; no other local physicians were on TWCC’s approved list. Consequently, Horton said he had no adequate remedy and had suffered irreparable injury. The trial court granted Horton’s a temporary injunction requiring TWCC to reinstate Baker. The trial court found that Horton would probably prevail at trial, that TWCC had removed the only approved local physician, which altered the status quo and made a judgment for a judgment at law for Horton ineffectual and Horton would continue to sustain injury. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court does not reach the merits of the order granting a temporary injunction, finding instead that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case at all. The court notes that a state agency can be enjoined when its actions are unconstitutional, but Horton did not plead any kind of constitutional violation. The court reviews the testimony given at the hearing. Another workers’ compensation claimant who was Baker’s patient testified about the troubles he would have if he had to travel out of town. Another of Baker’s patients said he did not have adequate transportation to travel to another doctor. A hospital administrator said Baker was the only orthopedic surgeon in Jasper County who accepted workers’ compensation claimants. All of this testimony is irrelevant to the issue of whether jurisdiction is appropriate, the court concludes. Baker testified, too, and the court also finds his testimony to any jurisdictional inquiry. The court then examines the Labor Code, determining that TWCC has authority to create a list of approved physicians. Under TWCC’s rule-making authority, it has also approved a set of factors by which to evaluate whether a physician should be removed from the list. “Although the TWCC must provide reasonable and necessary medical care for injured workers who sustain compensable injuries, this duty does not require the TWCC to provide care by a particular physician. Any determination that a particular physician must render care, to the exclusion of others who could provide reasonable and necessary medical care, falls into the category of”controlling an official within his legal authority to act.’” The court adds that TWCC is allowed to grant exceptions. The trial court’s attempt to force TWCC to keep Baker on the approved list is an interference with state action. “We limit our holding to the circumstances presented by the pleadings and record here as circumstances in other cases might merit judicial review of the TWCC’s actions.” OPINION:Horton, J.; McKeithen, CJ, Kreger, and Horton, 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.