Opinion
No. 10-03-00397-CV
Opinion delivered and filed March 30, 2005.
Appeal from the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas, Trial Court # 52,029-361.
Affirmed.
Bradley D. McClellan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tort Litigation Div., Nelly R. Herrera, Atty. Gen. Office, Austin, TX, for Appellant/ Relator.
Charisse A. Conley, Waco, TX, for Appellee/Respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA (Chief Justice GRAY dissenting).
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The State Office of Risk Management ("SORM") challenges the decision of an appeals panel of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission. The appeals panel affirmed the decision of a hearing examiner that SORM is not entitled to a reduction of Charisse Conley's impairment income benefits and is not entitled to suspend her benefits to recoup an $8,308.95 overpayment. The district court affirmed the decision of the appeals panel. SORM argues on appeal that the district court erred in determining that SORM is not entitled to suspend Conley's impairment income benefits to recoup the overpayment.
SORM cites no statutory authority providing for recoupment of the overpayment of benefits. Before the appeals panel, SORM relied solely on its contention that it is barred from paying the claimant benefits under section 403.055 of the Texas Government Code because its overpayment has resulted in the claimant owing a debt to the State of Texas. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 403.055 (Vernon 2005). The appeals panel rejected that argument, and SORM declined to reassert the argument before the district court. SORM acknowledged to the district court that SORM could point to no authority providing for recoupment of the overpayments, and even conceded that there was no authority to allow the court to enter a judgment stating SORM is entitled to recoup.
The district court did not err in affirming the decision of the appeals panel.
CONCLUSION
We overrule the issue and affirm the judgment.
DISSENTING OPINION
There is not a lot of legal precedent for common sense. In this case, it is undisputed The State Office of Risk Management has paid Conley $8,308.95 more than she was entitled. The State Office of Risk Management should be allowed to deduct this overpayment from amounts that would otherwise be paid to Conley in the future. It's just common sense. The majority cites no authority that prevents the application of common sense. The majority does not apply common sense. I would. Therefore, I dissent.