# Opinion

> Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · December 4, 2003

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2866158

## Case

- **Full name:** All Saints Health System All Saints Episcopal Hospital/Fort Worth All Saints Episcopal Hospital/Cityview Baptist Health System Baptist Medical Center North Central Baptist Hospital Northeast Baptist St. Luke's Baptist v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission State Office of Risk Management Continental Casualty Company Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund Mid-Century Insurance Company Truck Insurance Exchange Farmers Insurance Exchange
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- **Decided:** December 4, 2003
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2866158

## Opinion text

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
NO. 03-02-00803-CV
All Saints Health System; All Saints Episcopal Hospital/Fort Worth; All Saints Episcopal
Hospital/Cityview; Baptist Health System; Baptist Medical Center; North Central
Baptist Hospital; Northeast Baptist; St. Luke's Baptist; et al., Appellants
v.
Texas Workers' Compensation Commission; State Office of Risk Management;
Continental Casualty Company; Texas Association of School Boards Risk
Management Fund; Mid-Century Insurance Company; Truck Insurance
Exchange; Farmers Insurance Exchange; et al., Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GN201300, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N
Because the reasoning underlying our resolution of the important issue presented by
this appeal has implications for thousands of claims, and the original opinion unwittingly
complicates the future proceedings in this case and others, I would grant the appellees' motion for
rehearing. The Court's opinion acknowledges the critical procedural posture of this case: The
administrative law judge abated the test cases--while discovery issues were being litigated--because
the Hospitals filed a suit for declaratory judgment. It was this discovery dispute that spawned in part
this litigation.
The unassailable narrow ground for decision in this case, as appellees correctly
observe, is that rule 134.1(c) requires that reimbursement decisions be governed by the basic
statutory standards set out in Texas Labor Code section 413.011(d). This coincides with what the
Hospitals and the Commission agreed to in the 1997 compromise settlement agreement when the
Hospitals nonsuited and dismissed with prejudice their claims against the Commission. Any finer
parsing of the standard is premature and must await discovery and completed administrative
hearings. Accordingly, I would grant appellees' motion for rehearing to clarify the issues and resolve
this dispute. Because the Court does not, I respectfully dissent.
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Filed: December 4, 2003

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2866158. Public record. Not legal advice.