Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part, and Opinion filed March 17, 2020. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00274-CV DR. LOUIS PATINO, D.C.; DR. STEPHEN WILSON, M.D.; AND DR. GARY CRAIGHEAD, D.C., Appellants V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE-DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; COMMISSIONER RYAN BRANNAN AND DR. DONALD PATRICK, IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, TEXAS; CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CATHLEEN PARSLEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TOMMY BROYLES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; THE STATE OF TEXAS; AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellees On Appeal from the 126th District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-12-002272 OPINION Appellants Louis Patino, D.C.; Stephen Wilson, M.D.; and Gary Craighead, D.C. (the doctors) challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their claims for lack of jurisdiction against appellees Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation (the Division); Commissioner Ryan Brannan (the Commissioner) and Dr. Donald Patrick; State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas; Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley; Administrative Law Judge Tommy Broyles; the State of Texas; and the Texas Attorney General.1 Concluding that the trial court properly dismissed the doctors’ claims challenging final agency orders but erred in dismissing the doctors’ constitutional and statutory interpretation challenges and ultra vires claims, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. Background The doctors were excluded from the State’s workers’ compensation system approved doctor list by final agency orders of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) in 2004 and 2005 and by final agency order of the Division in 2007.2 Exclusion from the approved doctor list prevents the doctors from treating patients under the workers’ compensation system. Patino did not appeal. Wilson sought declaratory and injunctive relief in response to the 2005 order denying him admission to the approved doctor list. Wilson v. Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, No. 03-04-00627-CV, 2008 WL 5264875, at *1 (Tex. App.— Austin Dec. 17, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). Wilson argued that the Commission 1 The current commissioner has been substituted for his predecessor. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(a) (“When a public officer is a party in an official capacity to an appeal or original proceeding, and if that person ceases to hold office before the appeal or original proceeding is finally disposed of, the public officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party if appropriate.”). This case was transferred to our court from the Third Court of Appeals; therefore, we must decide the case in accordance with its precedent if our decision would be otherwise inconsistent with its precedent. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. 2 Effective September 1, 2005, the Commission was abolished and reorganized under the Division. See Act of May 29, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 265, § 8.001, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 469, 607-08. 2 acted without authority in promulgating rules that allowed it to terminate the prior approved doctor list and exclude him from a new approved doctor list. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals