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.




No less inventive than the pleadings in the prior entry is the basis for a lawsuit filed by a group of injured workers against the Division, claiming that a designated doctor’s ability to assign maximum medical improvement prior to the date of the certifying examination amounts to an unconstitutional “taking” of property under the Fifth Amendment.  The grounds for suitseems to be that an insurance carrier’s ability to recoup or convert overpaid Temporary Income Benefits (TIBs) deprives them of a vested property right to said benefits. 

“Seems” is the operative word here, as per the Court of Appeals’ memorandum opinion: “Appellants’ pleadings are so vague as to be difficult to assess and their briefing is at times insufficient under the rules.” The Court elaborates: “Appellants . . . have not identified which statutory provision they seek to challenge, presented clear argument about how the statute was unconstitutional, or provided citations to the record or to relevant authority.” 

The Court of Appeals explained that for a takings claim to have validity, the injured workers must establish a vested, constitutionally protected property interest. That requires more than mere expectancy of a benefit, it demands a “legitimate claim of entitlement.” An injured worker has “a mere expectancy” in receiving TIBs, per the Court, and not a vested right to such benefits. The injured workers in this case provided no authority to support their assertion to the contrary other than to argue, in essence, that because the insurance company paid their benefits, they must be entitled to them.

Holt v. Texas Department of Insurance—Division of Workers’ Compensation, No. 03-17-00758-CV, 2018 WL 6695725 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 20, 2018, affirmed) (mem. op.).

-  Copyright 2018, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP.