Pamela Johnson v. Texas Mutual Insurance Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation W. Ryan Brannan, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Workers' Compensation And Tiffany DuarteCapacity as Director of Div ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 19, 2017.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-17-00574-CV
    PAMELA JOHNSON, Appellant
    V.
    TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
    INSURANCE, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION; W. RYAN
    BRANNAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE
    DEPARTMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION; AND TIFFANY
    DUARTE, ET AL.CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF DIV, Appellees
    On Appeal from the 200th District Court
    Travis County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-16-004703
    MEMORANDUM                    OPINION
    This is an attempted appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to
    request that the judicial review be done under the substantial evidence rule or
    undefined scope of review.
    On September 22, 2016, appellant filed suit for de novo review of the Texas
    Department of Insurance—Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel.
    Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction alleging the trial court did not have
    jurisdiction over appellant’s suit. On February 2, 2017, appellant’s suit was
    dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On May 8, 2017, appellant filed a “Motion to
    Request that the Judicial Review be Done under Review under Substantial Evidence
    Rule or Undefined Scope of Review.” On June 8, 2017, appellant’s motion was
    denied. On June 29, 2017, appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the
    June 8, 2017 order denying her motion.
    Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v.
    Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all
    pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until
    final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness
    Corp. v. Jackson, 
    53 S.W.3d 352
    , 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps,
    
    842 S.W.2d 266
    , 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The denial of appellant’s
    motion to request that judicial review be done under the substantial evidence rule is
    not a final, appealable order, nor is there a statutory exception that permits an appeal
    of the denial of appellant’s motion. Moreover, appellant’s notice of appeal filed June
    29, 2017, is untimely as to the final judgment of dismissal signed February 2, 2017.
    See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after
    the date the judgment is signed if a motion for reconsideration is filed). The last
    possible date to file a motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal from the
    February 2, 2017 order was May 18, 2017. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 
    959 S.W.2d 615
    ,
    617–18 (1997).
    On August 11, 2017, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s
    intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a
    2
    response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before August 22,
    2017. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.
    The appeal is ordered dismissed.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jewell.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-17-00574-CV

Filed Date: 9/19/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2017