Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

JAFARI HODARI, Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, Appellee

NO. 14-23-00781-CV

|

Memorandum Opinion filed December 31, 2024

On Appeal from the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22-001425-CV-85

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Margaret “Meg” Poissant Justice

Vacated and Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 31, 2024.

Appellant Jafari Hodari (“Hodari”) appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee the City of College Station (“the City”). In three issues, Hodari argues (1) the trial court’s judgment is void because the City failed to give proper notice to the Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers’ Compensation (“DWC”), and the trial court erred when it granted the City’s motion for summary judgment because (2) the City did not name the proper affected parties and (3) there is a DWC rule placing a twenty-day limit to dispute an attorney-fee order. The City concedes on appeal that the judgment is void because the City failed to give proper notice to the DWC. Because we agree with the City, we vacate the trial court’s judgment as void and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND¹

Hodari sustained an injury in the course and scope of his employment with the City. As a result of his injury, he received workers’ compensation benefits and was awarded attorney’s fees by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The City appealed the ALJ’s decision to a DWC appeals panel and then filed a lawsuit against Hodari seeking judicial review of the appeals panel’s decision.

On March 30, 2023, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 7, 2023, the trial court signed an order granting the City’s motion for summary judgment and reversing the DWC appeal panel’s decision. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

In his first issue, Hodari argues the trial court’s judgment is void because the City did not give DWC notice of the proposed final judgment prior to the trial court’s entry of the judgment, as required by Labor Code § 410.258. The City agrees with Hodari.

Section 410.258(a) provides:

The party who initiated a proceeding under this subchapter [for judicial review of DWC determinations] or Subchapter G must file any proposed judgment or settlement made by the parties to the proceeding, including a proposed default judgment, with the division not later than the 30th day before the date on which the court is scheduled to enter the judgment or approve the settlement. The proposed judgment or settlement must be mailed to the division by certified mail, return receipt requested.

Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 410.258(a). Section 410.258 further provides that “[a] judgment entered or settlement approved without complying with the requirements of this section is void.” Id. § 410.258(f); see Metro. Transit Auth. v. Jackson, 212 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (“Put simply, unless a party complies with section 410.258(f), the trial court has no power to award relief.”).

Here, the City, as the party that filed the suit for judicial review of the DWC’s administrative decision in the district court, is “[t]he party who initiated a proceeding” pursuant to § 410.258(a) and is therefore subject to its requirements. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 410.258(a). The City concedes that it did not file a copy of the proposed judgment with the DWC thirty days before the trial court entered the judgment and that instead the DWC received notice of the judgment one day after it was entered. Because the City did not comply with the statutory notice requirement, we conclude that the trial court’s judgment is void and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. § 410.258(a), (f); see, e.g., Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. Thomas, 464 S.W.3d 754, 757–58 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.); Southern Ins. v. Brewster, 249 S.W.3d 6, 13 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied); Jackson, 212 S.W.3d at 801.

III. CONCLUSION

We vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.