Opinion
No. 05-11-01627-CV
04-26-2012
BENJAMIN G. GALINDO, Appellant v. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee
DISMISS; Opinion Filed April 26, 2012.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-10-03142-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Murphy, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice FitzGerald
Benjamin G. Galindo appeals from the trial court's judgment affirming a Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) decision denying him unemployment benefits. Because we conclude his notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Our jurisdiction is fundamental and invoked only upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); K & S Interests, Inc. v. Tex. Am. Bank/Dallas, 749 S.W.2d 887, 890 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, writ denied). Generally, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. This deadline is extended to ninety days if any party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, or a motion to reinstate. Id. 26.1(a)(1)-(3). It is also extended to ninety days upon the timelyfiling of a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law where the case was tried without a jury in a district or county court and the findings and conclusions are required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or could properly be considered by the court of appeals. Tex. R. Civ. P. 296; Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(4); IKB Indus. Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1997).
The record here reflects the trial court signed its judgment on October 6, 2011. Galindo timely filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and subsequently filed his notice of appeal December 1, 2011. Findings of fact and conclusions of law in an appeal from a TWC decision denying unemployment benefits, however, are neither required by the rules of civil procedure nor properly considered by the appellate court. A district court's review of a TWC decision is under a "substantial evidence de novo" standard; that is, the court conducts an evidentiary hearing for the limited purpose of determining whether, at the time TWC rendered its decision, substantial evidence existed to support the decision. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 212.202(a) (West 2006); Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tex. 1998). Whether TWC's decision is supported by substantial evidence is strictly a question of law, and when a trial court is presented with a question of law, findings and conclusions have no purpose and will not be considered on appeal. See IKB, 938 S.W.2d at 443; Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986).
By letter dated March 22, 2012, we directed Galindo to file a letter brief addressing our jurisdiction no later than April 2, 2012 and directed TWC and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. to file any response by April 6, 2012. To date, Galindo has not responded or otherwise communicated with the Court. Because findings of fact and conclusions of law have no purpose in an appeal from a TWC determination denying unemployment benefits, Galindo's request for findings and conclusions did not extend the deadline for filing the notice of appeal from thirty to ninety days. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was due November 7, 2011 or, with a timely extension motion, November 21, 2011. Galindo's notice of appeal, filed December 1, 2011 is untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1, 26.1, 26.3. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
KERRY P. FITZGERALD
JUSTICE
111627F.P05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
BENJAMIN G. GALINDO, Appellant
V.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellees
No. 05-11-01627-CV
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. CC-10- 03142-E).
Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, Justices Murphy and Fillmore participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellees TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant BENJAMIN G. GALINDO.
Judgment entered April 26, 2012.
KERRY P. FITZGERALD
JUSTICE