State News : Texas

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.


NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.  


Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.


Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.


Texas

STONE LOUGHLIN & SWANSON, LLP

  Our Website

  512-343-1300

  512-343-1385

Goodbye MDGuidelines; Hello, ODG by MCG


Effective September 29, 2026, DWC changed its adopted return-to-work guidelines from the MDGuidelines to ODG by MCG.  System participants are now required to use the disability duration values in the ODG by MCG, rather than the MDGuidelines, as guidelines for the evaluation of expected return-to-work periods.
 
The duration periods for both guidelines are similar.  The impetus for the change was to avoid the hassle and added cost to designated doctors and other system participants of maintaining two separate subscriptions—one for treatment guidelines and one for return-to-work guidelines.  This is a welcome relief for those of us already suffering from subscription fatigue for everything from streaming services to the seat warmers in our cars.
 
For background, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act requires the Commissioner to adopt treatment guidelines and return-to-work guidelines.  In 2007, DWC adopted the Medical Disability Advisor, Workplace Guidelines for Disability Duration (now called the MDGuidelines) as its return-to-work guidelines and at the same time it adopted the ODG by MCG as its treatment guidelines.  The ODG by MCG also contains return-to-work guidelines. 
 
Division rule 137.10 states that the disability duration expectancies provided by the return-to-work guidelines “shall be presumed to be a reasonable length of disability duration.”  For example, the ODG by MCG provides the following durations for a back sprain/strain:
 

 
DWC provided the following rationale for switching its return-to-work guidelines from the MDGuidelines to the ODG by MCG:
 

"To fulfill their role in the Texas workers' compensation system, designated doctors are required to subscribe to these guidelines, which includes purchasing access to them. The current adopted treatment guidelines are published by ODG by MCG, and include access to return-to-work guidelines. Designated doctors cannot currently use ODG by MCG's return-to-work guidelines because the return-to-work guidelines in the current rule are published by MDGuidelines. MDGuidelines will change its pricing model and raise its rates substantially starting on October 1, 2026. Since the ODG by MCG treatment guidelines subscription already includes access to return-to-work guidelines, the amendments will allow system participants to use the ODG by MCG services they already subscribe to instead of maintaining a separate, costly subscription to MDGuidelines. Amending the rule to update the reference from Medical Disability Advisor to ODG by MCG is necessary to ensure continued participation in the workers' compensation system by avoiding unnecessary administrative and monetary burdens on doctors in the system. The change will promote efficiency by allowing system participants to benefit from a single subscription instead of maintaining two separate subscriptions to substantially similar services. Avoiding those unnecessary costs also complies with the requirement in Labor Code §413.011 that the commissioner's adopted return-to-work guidelines help achieve effective medical cost control."

 
We can personally attest to the fact that DWC just saved us $1,000 which is how much MDGuidelines wanted to charge us to renew our subscription. 

Sometimes, rule changes really do save money.
 

Copyright 2026, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP 



 

DWC Proposes to Raise the Cap on Attorney Fees

 
DWC has posted an informal working draft of a rule that would raise the cap on attorney fees from $200 to $300 per hour.  The hourly rate has been capped at $200 per hour since 2017, before the significant inflation that followed the COVID-19 pandemic.
 
Attorneys may charge less than the $200 cap, but they cannot charge more—which is the problem.  In Texas, workers’ compensation law has the second lowest average hourly rate of any practice area at an average of $181.  Only juvenile law is lower at $158.  The average hourly rate for all practice areas is $366. Hourly Rates in Texas.  Thus, even the proposed $300 per hour price ceiling remains well below the average hourly rate for Texas attorneys.
 
The current ceiling of $200 is not sufficient to attract new attorneys to practice workers’ compensation law once the overhead costs of running a law firm are taken into account.  As a result, the workers’ compensation bar is aging and shrinking.  In DWC’s memo accompanying the working draft rule, it explained the reason for the proposed change as follows:
 
"These changes are necessary to ensure injured employees have access to quality legal representation. DWC attorney fee billing data reflects that the number of attorneys representing injured employees has steadily declined over time, from 134 attorneys in 2017 to 80 in 2026. This data also shows a drop in the number of attorneys representing workers’ compensation insurance carriers, from 168 attorneys in 2017 to 103 in 2026."
 
A similar trend is playing out across the country.  The Wall Street Journal published an article in August entitled “Workers Seeking Compensation for Injuries Face New Challenge: Fewer Lawyers.”  The article reported:   
 
"The pool of lawyers pursuing workers’ compensation cases is shrinking in some states.  State laws have dialed back payouts and benefits enough that young lawyers are turning to more-lucrative specialties, rather than replacing veteran attorneys who are retiring."
 
The Wall Street Journal reported that only two claimant attorneys remain in North Dakota, both of whom are in their late 60s and expected to retire soon.  It is encouraging to see DWC taking a proactive approach to this issue in Texas before it becomes a crisis.
 
Copyright 2026, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP 

 

 

AI Comes to DWC

 
DWC announced it is launching a new program area, AI Innovation and Integration, which will hopefully not be referred to by the acronym “AIIAI.” 
 
Some people claim that artificial intelligence will destroy humanity by 2030 but it also holds great promise in many areas including workers’ compensation.  DWC intends to use AI to modernize its processes and reduce administrative burdens.  The new program will also evaluate how system participants are using AI services.
 
DWC Commissioner Jeff Nelson discussed the new program at the State Bar of Texas Advanced Workers’ Compensation Conference in August.  Nelson said the program will focus on using AI to improve agency efficiency and to help streamline software development and training.  Nelson said the program should also allow DWC to provide training more quickly and tailor it to specific issues.  Nelson emphasized that AI will not play any role in the decision-making process in case that was a concern of anyone.  We look forward to seeing how AI can help modernize DWC.

Copyright 2026, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP 
  

AI Brings Organizational Changes with It

 

Allen Craddock, formerly DWC’s chief administrative law judge, has been tapped to serve as deputy commissioner of the AI Innovation and Integration section, overseeing the new program area.  Craddock is expected to bring the same unique skill set he applied to improve operations in hearings to help improve the efficiency of the agency as a whole.

Gerri Thomas has been named DWC’s chief administrative law judge for Hearings. Thomas joined DWC in 2012 and previously served as regional director for the Northern and Western regions.  Thomas discussed several well-received initiatives in her new role at the State Bar of Texas Advanced Workers’ Compensation Conference, including the Zoom interpreter project, short-notice “rocket docket” hearings, and the continued use of video CCHs.

Copyright 2026, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP


The Importance of Perseverance for Student Success - TigerCampus Hong Kong

Say what you will about Macedonio Sanchez Guillen, but the man is determined -- he simply doesn’t give up. In 2023, and then again in 2025, he sued his lawyer, his former employer, and his workers’ compensation insurance carrier for things they allegedly did some two decades earlier.

It all started in 2001 when Guillen suffered a legitimate work injury while operating a backhoe that overturned. His employer carried workers’ compensation insurance, and the insurance carrier accepted his workers’ compensation claim and began paying benefits. A dispute arose, so Guillen retained an accomplished workers’ compensation attorney in 2003. That attorney obtained additional benefits for Guillen through the dispute resolution process at the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers Compensation, but he declined to sue the carrier in district court as Guillen demanded and withdrew from representation in December 2004.

But the attorney had not seen the last of Macedonio Sanchez Guillen. Not by a long shot.

Guillen waited. For nineteen years and four months he waited. And then, in April 2023, just about the time that Texas hill country bluebonnets were at their peak bloom, Guillen slapped a law suit on the attorney, his employer, and the carrier, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. In the petition, Guillen alleged that the three had perpetrated a continuous and premeditated conspiracy to violate his human rights for the previous 21 years.  A Travis County district court took no time in dismissing Guillen’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Guillen didn’t give up. Instead, he pivoted. He requested a Benefit Review Conference at the Division. But the Division denied his request, noting that he had not identified a violation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act or Division rules. Guillen then asked the Division to schedule a Contested Case Hearing, but the Division denied that request, too, noting that compensability had not been denied and that Guillen had reached maximum medical improvement and had been assigned an impairment rating. So, Guillen repeated his request for a BRC, but the Division denied his request again. And then he repeated his request for a hearing, but the Division denied that request again too. Four requests, four denials.

At this point, most mortal men would have thrown in the towel. Not Guillen. He simply sued in district court again. This time he sought $480 million dollars, including $150 million dollars in punitive damages, $50 million dollars for medical expenses, and $50 million dollars for “moral damage” (whatever that is).  The district court promptly dismissed Guillen’s claims again. It dismissed his claims against the employer and carrier because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies at the Division, and it dismissed his claims against the attorney because they were too old.

Bloody, but unbowed, Guillen appealed. And in a decision filed March 11, 2026, the Third Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. Regarding Guillen’s claims against the employer and the carrier, the appeals court cited In re Crawford & Co. and agreed that Guillen failed to exhaust his administrative remedies at the Division. The court acknowledged that Guillen had requested dispute resolution at the Division four times and had been denied four times, but it concluded that Guillen had not shown that his complaints to the Division overlapped the claims he made in the district court. It also observed that Guillen had not explained “why he did not pursue an appeal and judicial review of those denials.” Regarding Guillen’s claims against the attorney, the appeals court agreed that the period of limitations had run.

But fear not. Guillen is not done. On March 19, 2026, he filed a motion for rehearing in the court of appeals and that motion is pending.
 


 Why did I Receive a SEC Subpoena ...

  
When an Administrative Law Judge at the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation issues a subpoena and the target of the subpoena fails to comply, either the ALJ or the party requesting the subpoena may seek an order compelling compliance from a state district court. But the party resisting issuance of the subpoena may not seek an order quashing the subpoena from the district court. That is the holding of the Fifteenth court of appeals in an opinion by Justice Scott Field in February.

The court was considering a subpoena issued by an ALJ in a claim involving the death of Lauren Smith, a paramedic for Fort Bend County EMS who passed away while at home. Her spouse, Joshua Heiliger, filed a claim for death benefits, contending that Lauren died in the course and scope of her employment because stress from working a 48-hour shift was a factor in her death.

Fort Bend County disputed compensability and sought a subpoena for Lauren’s mental health records from John Marcellus, M.D., the psychiatrist who prescribed Lauren’s ADHD medication. Fort Bend County argued that those records were relevant because Dr. Marcellus might have taken into account Lauren’s hypertension along with her complaints about stress.

The ALJ issued the subpoena over Heiliger’s objection, and Heiliger filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order against the issuance of the subpoena in district court. Fort Bend County and the ALJ filed pleas to the jurisdiction, but the district court granted the request for a TRO and, later, a temporary injunction. Fort Bend County and the ALJ then filed interlocutory appeals of the district court’s temporary injunction order.

The court of appeals found that the temporary injunction order was void because the district court had no jurisdiction to enter it. The court explained that the Texas Government Code expressly permits a party or an ALJ to seek an order compelling compliance with an ALJ’s subpoena from a state district court. Tex. Gov’t. Code §2001.201(a). But, the court said, “conspicuously absent from the remedies the Legislature provided is the ability for the objecting party to seek relief from the subpoena in district court.” In re Fort Bend County, 2026 WL 502194, February 24, 2006.
 


Free CE credit, Anywhere. Anytime. CompCourses.

 
Readers of The Compendium may recall DWC’s launching two years ago of CompCourses. These free webinars are designed to benefit workers’ compensation professionals, including adjusters, employers, and healthcare staff, by providing essential education on the workers’ compensation system, delivered in free 1-hour webinars. Not only are participants able to stay informed on current trends and improve their professional skills, they are also able to earn free Continuing Education (CE) credits by watching the webinars and completing a short quiz.
 
DWC announced last month that its CompCourses webinars will now be available in an on-demand, self-study format, allowing participants to learn and earn CE credit whenever it fits their schedule by watching previously recorded CompCourses webinars and completing the short quiz to earn 1 hour of TDI self-study CE credit.
 
Earning on-demand credit could not be easier! Simply visit the CompCourses webpage here and select the course you wish to take. You will fill out a Microsoft form, watch the 1-hour webinar on YouTube, and take the quiz to test your knowledge.
 
Voila…..
 
DWC has announced that it will continue to offer live CompCourses in 2026, affording participants the opportunity to engage directly with subject-matter experts and earn CE credit.
 
CompCourses webinars for 2026 are planned as follows:

  • Navigating the Top 10 Workers’ Compensation Disputes – Spring 2026.
  • Texas Workers’ Compensation Income Benefits 101 – Summer 2026.
  • Medical Fee Dispute Resolution – Fall 2026.
  • Return to Work – Winter 2026.

Copyright 2026, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP 

DWC is considering amending 28 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 152 concerning attorney fees and sought comments through last month on whether changes to the current hourly rate for attorney fees are necessary.
 
We note that when the Act was implemented in 1991, the approved hourly rate for attorney fees was $150. That rate remained in place for 26 years, until 2017, when it was increased to $200.
 
Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, $200 in January, 2017, has the same buying power as $266.89 in December, 2025. Further, $200 in December, 2025, has the same buying power as did $149.88 in January, 2017. In other words, due to inflation, it’s as if the rate was never increased.

 

               

By comparison, the maximum weekly temporary income benefit in 1991 was $428, and the minimum was $64. By 2016, the maximum weekly benefit had risen to $895, and the minimum to $134. Today, the maximum weekly benefit is $1,271, and the minimum is $191. So, benefit levels have nearly tripled since 1991, while the attorney hourly rate has increased only once and remains at $200 nearly a decade later.  Meanwhile, that rate must cover the overhead required to operate and maintain an effective law practice which has increased in ways that were inconceivable in 1991.
 
Workers’ compensation now has the second lowest average hourly rate of any practice area at an average of $180, second only to juvenile law at $146, while the average hourly rate for all practice areas is $367. Hourly Rates in Texas. 
 
The overarching concern is that if the rate cap is not raised, the workers’ compensation bar will continue to shrink, as it is doing now, as older, experienced attorneys retire and new attorneys choose other practice areas over workers’ compensation law because it is more difficult to make the numbers work.  At that point, employees, employers, and carriers will no longer be able to obtain effective legal representation in this highly complex area of the law.

Copyright 2026, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP 

1 Next