Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

Denise L. MATISE and The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, Appellees.

No. 05-97-00393-CV.

|

May 14, 1999.

Before Justices KINKEADE, MALONEY and JAMES.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KINKEADE.

*1 In this workers’ compensation case, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St.Paul) appeals the trial court’s order of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. St. Paul filed suit requesting judicial review of a Texas Worker’s Compensation Appeals Panel decision awarding benefits to Denise Matise. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because St. Paul did not simultaneously file a copy of its original petition with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission). In six points of error, St. Paul contends the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After reviewing St. Paul’s points of error, the briefs and the record, we conclude all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law. We therefore issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. The factual nature of this case, as well as its procedural history, pleadings, and evidence are known to the parties; therefore, we do not recount these matters.

All six of appellant’s points of error attack the trial court’s judgment granting the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its fifth point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in determining it had no subject matter jurisdiction over this case because Section 410.253 of the Texas Labor Code, requiring a plaintiff to simultaneously file a copy of the petition with the court and the Commission, is not jurisdictional. See Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 410.253 (Vernon 1996). Consequently, according to St. Paul, its failure to simultaneously file a copy of its petition with the Commission did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.

After St. Paul filed its brief in this case but before oral argument, the Texas Supreme Court decided this issue in two per curiam opinions. See Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.1999), Benavidez v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, 985 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.1999). In these opinions, the Court held that although simultaneous filing of the petition with the Commission under section 410.253 is mandatory, untimely filing does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d at 961-62; Benavidez, 985 S.W.2d at 458. Both St. Paul and appellees, recognizing that these opinions are dispositive of this appeal, filed motions with this Court pointing out these opinions and requesting a decision without oral argument. We agree that these cases are dispositive of this appeal.

Accordingly, we hold the trial court erred in dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d at 961-62; Benavidez, 985 S.W.2d at 458. We sustain St. Paul’s fifth point of error and reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing the case. Because of our disposition of this point of error, we not reach St. Paul’s other points of error.

*2 Following Sinclair and Benavidez, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.