Risk Management Strategies, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission, 464 S.W.3d 864

RMS provides payroll, employment, and risk-management services to banks serving as trustees of Texas special‑needs (chapter 142) trusts; banks reimburse RMS for caregiver wages and taxes and pay a monthly RMS fee.
RMS’s client trusts often hire family members as in‑home caregivers; RMS’s agreements state RMS will employ or contract with those caregivers and trustees shall not be deemed employers.
The Texas Workforce Commission issued a tax determination finding the caregivers were employees of the individual bank trusts (not RMS), citing factors such as who paid wages, who benefitted from services, and prior reporting.
RMS sought administrative review; the Commission affirmed. RMS then sued for judicial review and added claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief alleging Commissioners exceeded statutory authority.
The trial court dismissed the suit on the Commission’s plea to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign immunity; RMS appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tex. Lab. Code §212.201 waives Commission immunity for judicial review of this tax/coverage decision	§212.201 waives immunity for any final “decision of the commission,” so RMS may judicially review the Commission’s determination that banks (not RMS) are employers	§212.201 is limited to judicial review of final Commission decisions in unemployment‑benefits disputes; other waivers in chapter 213 govern tax disputes	Held limited: §212.201 applies only to decisions resolving unemployment‑benefits claims; RMS’s challenge to the employer/tax determination is not covered
Whether Commissioners’ decision violated statutory requirements so as to state an ultra vires claim (declaratory/injunctive relief)	Commissioners were required by chapter 201 to apply a control/right‑to‑control test and therefore acted without legal authority when they considered other factors and found trusts, not RMS, were employers	The Act’s definitions and provisions permit consideration of control plus other factors (who benefits, who paid wages); Commissioners did not act beyond statutory authority	Held: RMS failed to allege an ultra vires claim as pleaded, but pleadings were not incurably deficient; remand for opportunity to amend

Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT‑Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (sovereign immunity and waiver framework)
Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (jurisdictional inquiry and pleading standards)
Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (strict construction of statutory waivers of immunity)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity)
Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1997) (ultra vires claim requires action beyond legal authority or failure to perform ministerial duty)
Critical Health Connection, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Comm’n, 338 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (Commission’s use of multi‑factor right‑to‑control test under the Act)
Limestone Prods. Distrib., Inc. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2002) (common‑law right‑to‑control test for employee vs. independent contractor)
Continental Cas. Ins. Co. v. Functional Restoration Assocs., 19 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. 2000) (statutory construction principle to give effect to all statutory language)