Charles Manbeck v. Austin Independent School District
2012 Tex. LEXIS 747
| Tex. | 2012Background
- AISD, a self‑insured governmental entity, is an “insurance carrier” under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and faces a fee issue in Manbeck’s suit.
- Manbeck injured on the job, with AISD acknowledging the injury but disputing two back/shoulder conditions.
- Proceedings flowed through the WC Act process: benefit review conference, contested-case hearing, appeals panel, and judicial review.
- In district court, Manbeck sought attorney fees under §408.221(c); AISD nonsuited, and a jury awarded pre‑nonsuit fees, post‑nonsuit fees, and contingent appellate fees.
- The court of appeals upheld some fee aspects and rejected the пост‑nonsuit “fees for fees” theory; AISD petitioned the Supreme Court on governmental immunity grounds.
- The Supreme Court held AISD immune from the attorney-fee award, reversing parts of the appellate judgment and applying Barfield/Norman–type immunity analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental immunity bars the fee award. | Manbeck argues immunity does not bar fees. | AISD contends immunity bars any fee recovery. | Yes, immunity bars the fee award. |
| Whether inclusion of Chapter 408 in the Political Subdivisions Law waives immunity for attorney fees. | Manbeck relies on 504.002(a) list to show a waiver. | AISD argues no clear waiver from adoption alone. | No waiver; immunity remains. |
| Whether Norman/Barfield control regardless of change in the Political Subdivisions Law. | Manbeck would have Barfield-style relief. | AISD relies on Norman’s current consistency concerns. | Norman controls; no clear waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of La Porte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1995) (adoption alone not a clear waiver of immunity; remedies must show intent to waive)
- Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Norman, 342 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. 2011) (no clear waiver due to 504.053(e) amendment; internal inconsistency undermines waiver)
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (governmental entity’s affirmative claims affect immunity narrowly)
- City of Dallas v. Albert, 354 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. 2011) (applies Reata framework; limits on immunity rules)
- Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994) (Tort Claims Act does not expressly provide for fees and costs)
- State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Davis, 315 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (attorney fees unavailable in workers’ compensation case)