Texas State Courts

Texas Federal Courts

Division of Workers Compensation

State Office of Administrative Hearings

Title 6. Public Officers and Employees

Subtitle A. Provisions Generally Applicable to Public Officers and Employees

Title 10. General Government

Subtitle A. Administrative Procedure and Practice

Title 8. Health Insurance and Other Health Coverages

Subtitle D. Provider Plans

Title 14. Utilization Review and Independent Review

Title 2. Protection of Laborers

Subtitle E. Regulation of Certain Occupations

Title 5. Workers’ Compensation

Part 7. State Office of Administrative Hearings

Part 1. Texas Department of Insurance

Chapter 19. Agents Licensing

Part 2. Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation

(Claims Before Jan. 1, 1991)

(Claims On or After Jan. 1, 1991)

Part 3. Texas Certified Self-Insurer Guaranty Association

Part 4. State Office of Risk Management

Part 6. Office of Injured Employee Counsel

Part 20. Texas Workforce Commission

Chapter 815. Unemployment Insurance
Subchapter B. Benefits, Claims, and Appeals

Workers Compensation Statutes

Government Code

Title 6. Public Officers and Employees

Subtitle A. Provisions Generally Applicable to Public Officers and Employees

Title 10. General Government

Subtitle A. Administrative Procedure and Practice

Insurance Code

Title 8. Health Insurance and Other Health Coverages

Subtitle D. Provider Plans

Title 14. Utilization Review and Independent Review

Labor Code

Title 2. Protection of Laborers

Subtitle E. Regulation of Certain Occupations

Title 5. Workers' Compensation

Workers Compensation Regulations

Title 1. Administration

Part 7. State Office of Administrative Hearings

Title 28. Insurance

Part 1. Texas Department of Insurance

Chapter 19. Agents Licensing

Part 2. Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation

(Claims Before Jan. 1, 1991)

(Claims On or After Jan. 1, 1991)

Part 3. Texas Certified Self-Insurer Guaranty Association

Part 4. State Office of Risk Management

Part 6. Office of Injured Employee Counsel

Title 40. Social Services and Assistance

Part 20. Texas Workforce Commission

Chapter 815. Unemployment Insurance

Chapter 19. Agents Licensing

Subchapter B. Benefits, Claims, and Appeals

Latest Court Cases

Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein PC v. Ace American Insurance Company

The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by the Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein and Daniel Miramontes seeking to shift attorney’s fees to the workers’ compensation carrier. The court held that because Miramontes did not appeal the December 2022 judgment—which awarded over $80,000 in attorney’s fees

Law v. Texas Department of Insurance - Division of Workers' Compensation

The Fifteenth Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s dismissal order and dismissed Randall Law’s claims with prejudice as moot. Law had challenged the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation’s Subsequent Injury Fund for switching from annual written to monthly phone verification of his eligibility. Because the agency

Lilly v. Weisinger

Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Glenn Eric LILLY, Appellant v. Michael Scott WEISINGER, Appellee NO. 09-23-00258-CV | Submitted on August 30, 2024 | Opinion Delivered August 28, 2025 On Appeal from the 284th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 22-07-08680-CV, Honorable Kristin Bays, Judge Attorneys & Firms

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC v. M Felder Trucking, LLC

On appeal from the state court judgment, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Pilot. It held that, as a matter of law, Mark Felder was not a “Covered Person” under the nonsubscriber insurance policy at issue because Felder Trucking did not pay him wages directly. Without

Rudolph Automotive, LLC v. Juarez

The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order that had disregarded the jury’s findings and held, as a matter of law, that two employees were acting in the course and scope of employment when an accident occurred. Because Rudolph Automotive was a non-subscriber to workers’ compensation insurance,

BFS Group, LLC v. De Leon

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). BFS GROUP LLC and Builders FirstSource, Inc., Appellants v. Jose Gustavo DE LEON, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gustavo De Leon, Deceased, and Elizabeth Martinez Silva, Individually, Appellees NO. 14-24-00548-CV | Opinion filed August 19, 2025 On Appeal

Latest AP Decisions

APD 250998

The Appeals Panel reversed the ALJ’s finding that the first certification of MMI and 15% impairment rating from Dr. V did not become final, ruling instead that it did become final under Section 408.123 and Rule 130.12 because no valid exception applied. As a result, the Panel reversed the ALJ’s

APD 251015

The Appeals Panel reversed the ALJ’s decision awarding first quarter supplemental income benefits and remanded the case for further findings. Although the claimant showed that his underemployment was due to impairment from the compensable injury, the evidence indicated he did not work during the final week of the qualifying period.

APD 250853

The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s findings that the compensable injury did not extend to additional cervical spine conditions and that the claimant had no disability from October 24, 2023, through the date of the hearing. However, the Panel reversed the determinations of MMI and IR because the designated doctor

APD 250881

The Appeals Panel affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the ALJ’s decision. The Panel upheld the finding that the compensable injury does not extend to a T4-5 disc bulge or protrusion. However, it reversed the ALJ’s determination that the injury did not extend to a C3-4 disc

APD 250944

The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s decision that the compensable injury does not extend to multiple disputed spinal and shoulder conditions but does include a cervical sprain. However, the Panel reversed and remanded the determinations of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and impairment rating (IR) because the adopted certification was invalid—it

APD 250877

The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s determinations that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on November 5, 2024, and did not have disability on that date. However, the Panel reversed and remanded the impairment rating (IR) determination because the designated doctor’s report contained inconsistent range-of-motion measurements for supination of

News For You