Opinion
No. 05-15-01504-CV
03-14-2016
WORKERS' COMPENSATION SOLUTIONS, Appellant v. TEXAS HEALTH, L.L.C., D/B/A INJURY 1 DALLAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-07557-G
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Before the Court is Workers' Compensation Solutions' (WCS) petition for permissive appeal regarding the trial court's interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction. We may accept a permissive appeal if (1) the order being appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d), (f) (West 2015). A "controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion" has been explained as follows:
[A] controlling question of law is one that deeply affects the ongoing process of litigation. If resolution of the question will considerably shorten the time, effort, and expense of fully litigating the case, the question is controlling. Generally, if the viability of a claim rests upon the court's determination of a question of law, the question is controlling.... Substantial grounds for disagreement exist when the question presented to the court is novel or difficult, when controlling circuit law is
doubtful, when controlling circuit law is in disagreement with other courts of appeals, and where there simply is little authority upon which the district court can rely.... Generally, a district court will make [a finding that the appeal will facilitate final resolution of the case] when resolution of the legal question dramatically affects recovery in a lawsuit.ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers, 05-15-00646-CV, 2015 WL 4554519 *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 29, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Gulf Coast Asphalt Co. v. Lloyd, 457 S.W.3d 539, 543-44 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.)).
WCS filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting that Texas Health, LLC, which filed suit in the district court pursuant to section 410.208 of the labor code, lacked standing and also had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.208 (West 2015). In its order denying the plea to the jurisdiction, the trial court found that both asserted grounds were controlling questions of law and that an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation by resolving issues that could potentially be case-dispositive. The questions presented, however, are well-settled. Well-settled questions are not proper for a permissive appeal because they are not subject to "a substantial ground for difference of opinion." See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d), (f); ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., WL 4554519 *2. Accordingly, we deny the petition and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(j), 43.2(f).
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE 151504F.P05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-07557-G.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee TEXAS HEALTH, L.L.C., D/B/A INJURY 1 DALLAS recover its costs of this appeal from appellant WORKERS' COMPENSATION SOLUTIONS. Judgment entered March 14, 2016.