Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, No. 98-0945
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 984 S.W.2d 958 |
| Parties | 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 358 ALBERTSON'S, INC., Petitioner, v. Charles SINCLAIR, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 98-0945 |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1999 |
Page 958
v.
Charles SINCLAIR, Respondent.
Rehearing Overruled March 11, 1999.
Page 959
Ken W. Good, Tyler, for Petitioner.
Timothy G. Moore, Walter Mark Bennett, Longview, Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We consider three issues in this petition for review: (1) when is a party, who seeks judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision, required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under the Texas Labor Code section 410.253; (2) whether "the mailbox rule" 1 applies to section 410.253 filings in judicial review actions under Texas Labor Code chapter 410, subchapter G; 2 and (3) whether an untimely section 410.253 filing with the Commission deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. We hold that section 410.253 requires a party to file a copy of its petition for judicial review with the Commission on the same day that the party files its petition in the trial court and that the mailbox rule applies to section 410.253 filings in subchapter G judicial review actions. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 5. We also hold that untimely filing with the Commission under section 410.253 does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Charles Sinclair filed a compensation claim against Albertson's, Inc. with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission[DELETED: ,] for an alleged work-related injury. Albertson's contested the compensability of the injury. A Commission hearing officer and an Appeals Panel ruled for Albertson's. The fortieth day after the Appeals Panel's decision was a Sunday. The next day, Sinclair filed a petition with the trial court for judicial review under Texas Labor Code chapter 410, subchapter G and mailed a copy of the petition to the Commission. The Commission received the petition two days later. Albertson's moved to dismiss the judicial review action, alleging that because the Commission did not receive Sinclair's petition within forty days of the Appeals Panel's decision, Sinclair's filing with the Commission was untimely under section 410.253. See TEX. LAB.CODE § 410.253. The trial court dismissed the judicial review action for want of jurisdiction.
Page 960
The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Sinclair's filing with the Commission was timely because the mailbox rule applies to section 410.253 filings. 975 S.W.2d 662. The court of appeals also held that section 410.253's timely filing requirement was directory, not mandatory or jurisdictional.The Labor Code provides for judicial review of an Appeals Panel decision. See TEX. LAB.CODE § 410.251. Chapter 410, subchapter F contains general provisions for judicial review, including:
Time for Filing Petition; Venue
A party may seek judicial review by filing suit not later than the 40 th day after the date on which the decision of the appeals panel was filed with the division.
TEX. LAB.CODE § 410.252(a).
Service
A copy of the petition shall be simultaneously filed with the court and the commission and served on any opposing party.
TEX. LAB.CODE § 410.253.
Commission Intervention
On timely motion initiated by the executive director, the commission shall be permitted to intervene in any judicial proceeding under this subchapter or Subchapter G.
TEX. LAB.CODE § 410.254.
In addition, subchapter G provides a modified trial de novo procedure that applies only to judicial review actions involving "compensability or eligibility for or the amount of income or death benefits." TEX. LAB.CODE § 410.301; see also Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Manasco, 971 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tex.1998); Texas Workers' Compensation Comm'n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 515 (Tex.1995). Subchapter G also dictates that when the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure conflict with the procedures in subchapter G, subchapter G controls. See TEX. LAB.CODE § 410.305.
Albertson's asserts that section 410.253 requires a petitioner for judicial review to furnish the Commission a copy of the petition for judicial review any time within section 410.252's forty-day time period for filing the petition. See TEX. LAB.CODE § 410.252-.253. We disagree. In construing a statute, our objective is to determine and give effect to the Legislature's intent. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex.1998). We accomplish that purpose, first, by looking to the statute's plain and common meaning. See Garrison, 966 S.W.2d at 484. In ordinary usage, "simultaneous" means "existing or occurring at the same time." See Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1969). We cannot construe "simultaneous" to mean any time within the same forty days. The plain meaning of "simultaneous" and common sense dictate that we construe section 410.253 to require a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology, No. 04-0931.
...because a statutory requirement is mandatory does not mean that compliance with it is jurisdictional." Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961 (Tex.1999). Later, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Loutzenhiser, we elaborated on this distinction, looking to legi......
-
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., No. 02-0213.
...870 P.2d 572, 575 (Colo. Ct.App.1994, cert.denied). 68. Id. at 576. 69. See cases cited supra note 44. 70. Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961 (Tex.1999) (citing Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tex.1992), and Schepps v. Presbyterian Hosp. of Dallas, 652 S.W.2d 934, 938 71......
-
Hoyt v. City of El Paso, No. EP–11–CV–485–KC.
...is to determine the legislature's intent. Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Downs, 81 S.W.3d 803, 805 (Tex.2002); Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 960 (Tex.1999). The plain meaning of the statute's words and phrases is the strongest indicator of legislative intent. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Baker......
-
University of Texas v. Loutzenhiser, No. 02-0894.
...of noncompliance, we look to the statute's purpose to determine the proper consequences.") (citing Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961 (Tex.1999); Schepps v. Presbyterian Hosp. of Dallas, 652 S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tex.1983); and Chisholm v. Bewley Mills, 155 Tex. 400, 287 S.W.2d 9......
-
Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology, No. 04-0931.
...because a statutory requirement is mandatory does not mean that compliance with it is jurisdictional." Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961 (Tex.1999). Later, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Loutzenhiser, we elaborated on this distinction, looking to legi......
-
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., No. 02-0213.
...870 P.2d 572, 575 (Colo. Ct.App.1994, cert.denied). 68. Id. at 576. 69. See cases cited supra note 44. 70. Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961 (Tex.1999) (citing Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tex.1992), and Schepps v. Presbyterian Hosp. of Dallas, 652 S.W.2d 934, 938 71......
-
Hoyt v. City of El Paso, No. EP–11–CV–485–KC.
...is to determine the legislature's intent. Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Downs, 81 S.W.3d 803, 805 (Tex.2002); Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 960 (Tex.1999). The plain meaning of the statute's words and phrases is the strongest indicator of legislative intent. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Baker......
-
University of Texas v. Loutzenhiser, No. 02-0894.
...of noncompliance, we look to the statute's purpose to determine the proper consequences.") (citing Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961 (Tex.1999); Schepps v. Presbyterian Hosp. of Dallas, 652 S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tex.1983); and Chisholm v. Bewley Mills, 155 Tex. 400, 287 S.W.2d 9......