in Re Crawford & Company, Crawford & Company Healthcare Management, Inc., Patsy Hogan, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Relators
453 S.W.3d 450
Tex. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Edward Glenn Johnson and Natalie Johnson sued Crawford & Company, related entities, and insurers (collectively "Crawford") asserting multiple common-law and statutory claims arising from insurer conduct connected to a workers’ compensation claim.
- Crawford moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (plea to the jurisdiction) and sought summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the Division of Workers’ Compensation and that some claims (e.g., malicious prosecution) lacked essential elements.
- The trial court denied relief in part; Crawford petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims.
- Crawford delayed about five months after the trial-court order to seek mandamus, shortly before a long-scheduled trial in a suit originally filed in 2006.
- The court evaluated (1) whether mandamus was an appropriate vehicle, (2) whether administrative-exhaustion issues were properly resolved by mandamus, and (3) whether Ruttiger precluded all common-law claims against workers’ compensation insurers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to review denial of plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment | Mandamus is inappropriate; factual disputes and appeals suffice | Mandamus warranted to enforce jurisdictional dismissal for failure to exhaust admin remedies | Denied: mandamus not justified here (delay, inadequate showing, appeal available; summary-judgment issues not generally reviewable by mandamus) |
| Whether plaintiffs failed to exhaust Division of Workers’ Compensation remedies | Plaintiffs certified exhaustion and submitted documentation creating fact issues | Defendants claim all claims fall within DWC exclusive jurisdiction and were not exhausted | Fact question exists on exhaustion; resolution not appropriate in mandamus; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Ruttiger eliminated all extra-contractual/common-law claims against workers’ comp insurers | Plaintiffs argue Ruttiger only removed bad-faith cause of action and left other torts intact | Defendants assert Ruttiger preempts all common-law claims related to workers’ comp | Rejected: Ruttiger abrogated bad-faith claim but did not clearly preempt causes like malicious prosecution; some claims survive and may be outside comp scheme |
| Whether malicious-prosecution and similar torts are subsumed by workers’ compensation scheme | Plaintiffs: such torts are independent and not intended to be remedied by DWC | Defendants: torts relate to workers’ comp and should be routed to DWC | Court: malicious-prosecution is generally outside comp scheme; Ruttiger does not show Legislature intended to subsume such claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standards: clear abuse and no adequate appellate remedy)
- In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus generally unavailable to review denial of summary judgment)
- In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. 2006) (factual disputes over exhaustion not resolved in mandamus)
- Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2012) (abrogated common-law bad-faith claim in workers’ compensation context; did not clearly eliminate all extra-contractual torts)
- In re Kuster, 363 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2012) (relator’s burden in mandamus to show entitlement)