IN RE: ACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND KRISTE HENDERSON (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators Accident Fund General Insurance Company and Kriste Henderson filed a petition for writ of mandamus on June 13, 2016, contending that the trial court lacks jurisdiction because the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers Compensation has exclusive jurisdiction over the lawsuit filed against relators by Ricky Sayaz and Nelda Ramirez. This Court requested and received responses to the petition for writ of mandamus from real parties in interest Sayez and Coil Tubing, L.L.C. Additionally, relators filed a reply in support of their petition for writ of mandamus and Coil Tubing, L.L.C. filed a reply to Sayez's response to the petition for writ of mandamus.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 463 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

Mandamus may lie to correct a trial court's denial of a plea to the jurisdiction based on an agency's exclusive jurisdiction because “the judicial appropriation of state agency authority would be a clear disruption of the ‘orderly processes of government.’ ” In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (quoting State v. Sewell, 487 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Tex. 1972)); see In re Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 295 S.W.3d 327, 328–29 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); In re Mid–Century Ins. Co. of Tex., 426 S.W.3d 169, 178 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding). Thus, mandamus is appropriate to review a claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to dismiss claims over which the Division of Workers' Compensation has exclusive jurisdiction. In re Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d 920, 921 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the responses, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this Court is LIFTED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED as is all relief sought by any party to this proceeding. See id. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM