The opinion
ADELE HEDGES, Justice,
dissenting on en banc reconsideration.
I respectfully dissent. It is undisputed that HCESD did not file a written response to Miller’s written request for appeal, as required by subsection (b) of the Labor Code. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 410.202 (b) (Vernon 1996). 1 The inquiry is whether subsection (b) is jurisdictional or whether it is merely an irregularity going to preservation of error in the trial court.
I believe that failure to comply with subsection (b) deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction to review the decision of the appeals panel. I also believe that subsection (a) is jurisdictional. 2 See Morales v. Employers Cas. Co., 897 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.App.-San Antonio *226 1995, writ denied). My reasoning derives from the very nature of judicial review of administrative agency decisions.
There is no inherent right to judicial review of administrative agency decisions. Gen. Serv. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591, 599 (Tex.2001). It exists only when (1) a statute provides for such review, (2) the order adversely affects a vested property right, or (3) the order otherwise violates some constitutional right. Id.; see also Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Schutz, 101 S.W.3d 512, 521 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). This harsh rule derives from the concept of sovereign immunity: a suit against an agency of the State is a suit against the State. See Lowe v. Texas Tech Univ., 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1976). And a challenge of a State agency’s decision, notwithstanding that the agency is not a named party in the judicial review, is likewise a suit against the State. Without specific legislative authorization, an aggrieved party may not seek judicial review of an administrative agency’s action because under sovereign immunity, the State cannot be sued without its permission. Schutz, 101 S.W.3d at 521 ; S.W. Airlines Co. v. Tex. High-Speed Rail Auth., 867 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, writ denied).
Acting through the Legislature, the State, has waived sovereign immunity under specifically defined circumstances. For example, in the area of tort recovery, the State has waived immunity through the Texas Tort Claims Act. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. & RemlCode Ann. §§ 101.021, 101.025 (Vernon 1997). In the context of judicial review of administrative agency actions, the Legislature has imposed certain procedural requirements that must be met before sovereign immunity is waived. See e.g., Tex. Gov’t Code Ank § 2001.171 (Vernon 2001). The purpose of these procedural requirements is to ensure that grievances are fully aired at the administrative law level in the interest of efficiency. The difficulty we face is deciding which of the procedural requirements were intended by the Legislature to grant a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit if fulfilled (thereby investing the trial court with subject-matter jurisdiction), as opposed to those procedural requirements upon which waiver of sovereign immunity is not based.
I am persuaded that subsection (b) is jurisdictional because it appears to be a statutory requirement defining a class of causes that a court may decide: those in which the respondent has filed a written response to the petitioner’s written request for appeal to the appeals panel. Why? First, subsection (b) closely tracks the language of subsection (a), providing for waiver of sovereign immunity, and appears to enjoy equal dignity; pointedly, both use the mandatory auxiliary verb “shall.” Second, if the respondent does not file a written response, the appeals panel is deprived of the complete argument, and the appeals panel’s role is diminished or rendered meaningless.
Conclusion
I would affirm the dismissal of the trial court for want of jurisdiction.
. Section 410.202 of the Labor Code provides as follows:
(a) To appeal the decision of a hearing officer, a party shall file a written request for appeal with the appeals panel not later than the 15th day on which the decision of the hearing officer is received from the division and shall on the same date serve a copy of the request for appeal on the other party.
(b) The respondent shall file a written response with the appeals panel not later than the 15 th day after the date on which the copy of the request for appeal is served and shall on the same date serve a copy of the response on the appellant.
(c)A request for appeal or a response must clearly and concisely rebut or support the decision of the hearing officer on each issue on which review is sought.
Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 410.202 (Vernon 1996).
. Just as clearly, subsection (c) is nonjurisdic-tional and implicates only whether a party has preserved error for judicial review. See Hill v. Board of Trustees, 40 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, no pet.).