### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 08
- 00340
- CV
LONNIE DONALDSON , Appellant
v. SERVICE LLOYDS INSUR ANCE COMPANY , Appellee

From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 25,306

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lonnie Donaldson su ffered a work

- related injury in 1992 and was awarded worker’s compensation benefits

. When he challenged his impairment rating , t he Texas Department of Insurance Division of Worker’s Compensation (“DWC”) held a contested case hearing and rendered a decisio n. Donaldson appealed, but t he Appeals
Panel dismissed the appeal as untimely

. In 2008, Donaldson, a Texas inmate, sued Service Lloyds Insurance Company , his employer’s insurance carrier , for negligence and pain and suffering

. T he trial court granted Ll oyds ’s plea to the jurisdiction andDonaldson v. Service Lloyds Ins. Co. Page 2

motion to dismiss . Donaldson appeal s , arguing that: (1) he was denied a jury trial; (2) he was denied counsel; (3) he was not allowed to wear his “free world clothing” at the hearing on Lloyds’ motion; (4) he failed to timely receive transcripts; (5) Lloyds used his status as an inmate to make him “look bad;” (6) no evidence was presented on his behalf at the contested case hearing and the DWC hearing officer improperly found that
he failed to show cause for fail ure to a ppear at the hearing ; and (7) Lloyds has denied medical treatment and payment . We affirm

. ANALYSIS
The alleg ations in Donaldson’s petition arise out of his 1992 injury

. In its plea to the jurisdiction, Lloyd s argue d that : (1) the DWC has the sole authori ty to award compensation benefits; thus, the administrative process is Donalds on’s exclusive remedy; and (2) Donaldson ’s suit for judicial review of an agency decision was not timely

. In its motion to dismiss, Lloyds argued that Donaldson’s lawsuit is fri volous under Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act provid es that the recovery of workers’ compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy of an employee covered by workers’ compensation insurance for a work

- r elated injury. Roskey v. Continental Cas. Co ., 190 S.W.3d 875, 880 (Tex. App.

— Dall as 2006, pet. denied) ; Bestor v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co. , 276 S.W.3d 549, 553 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2008, no pet.) ; see Am

. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Fodge , 63 S.W.3d 801, 804

- 05 (Tex. 2001) ; see also T EX
. L AB
. C ODE A NN
. § 408.001(a) (Vernon 2006 ).
It “ vests the power to award compensation benefits solely in the Workers’ Compensation Commissi on, s ubject to judicial review. ” Fodge , 63 S.W.3d at 803.Donaldson v. Service Lloyds Ins. Co. Page 3

Donaldson’s suit arises out of the same injury for which he received benefits. The DWC, not the trial court or this Court, evaluates “ disputes over income benefits, preauthorization of medical care, a nd reimbursement of medical expenses. ” Id. Donaldson’s exclusive remedy is the recovery of worker’s compensation benefits, not a common law personal injury claim. 1 See Aguirre v. Vasquez , 225 S.W.3d 744, 753 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet. ) ( “ Section 408.001 of the Labor Code precludes employees or families of employees who have received Workers’ Compensation benefits from asserting a common law claim for those injuries.”). Additionally , Donaldson filed a suit for judicial review against the DWC hearing officer, not Lloyds. To the extent that his pleadings against Lloyds may be construed as an attempt to seek judicial review , he m ust have sought judicial review withi n forty days of the Appeals P anel ’s filed decision , in this case September 2007

. See T EX
. L AB
. C ODE A NN
. § 410.251 (Vernon 2006 ); see also Act of May 12, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 269, § 1, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 987, 120 9 (amended 2009) (current version at T EX
. L AB
. C ODE
A NN
. § 410.252 (Vernon Supp. 2009 ) )

. He maintains that, in October 2007, he sued Lloyds in Brazos County. That suit, however, was dismissed. Our review consists solely of the Burleson County proceeding s , which were not filed until May 2008, well beyond the forty

- day time period for seeking judicial review. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Donaldson’s claims, Lloyds’ plea to the jurisdiction was properly granted and the trial court did no t violate Donaldson’s

1 We also note that th e two

- year statute of limitations has run for filing a personal injury law suit. See T EX

. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 16.003(a) (Vernon 2002 ).Donaldson v. Service Lloyds Ins. Co. Page 4

right to a jury trial by dismissing the lawsuit

. S ee Fort Bend County v. Martin

- Simon , 177 S.W.3d 479, 484 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“ When a trial court learns that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a cause, the cour t must dismiss the cause and refrain from rendering a judgment on the merits.”). Nor was the trial court required to appoint an attorney for Donaldson. See Gibson v. Tolbert , 102 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tex. 2003 ) (“[W] e have ‘ never held that a civil litigant m ust be represented by counsel in order for a court to carry on its essential, constitutional function. ’ ”)

. T he record of the hearing contains no objection from Donaldson as to his “free world clothing. ” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P.
33.1. Nor does the record supp ort Lloyds’ complaints regarding untimely receipt of transcripts or an intent to make him “look bad.” B ecause the trial court properly granted Lloyds’ plea to the jurisdiction, his lawsuit was properly dismissed on that
basis and we need not address wheth er the trial court properly granted Lloyds’ motion
to dismiss as frivolous

. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna , and Justice Davis (Chief Justice Gray concurring with note)* Affirmed Opini on delivered and filed November 10, 2009 [CV06]

* (Chief Justice Gray concurs only in the judgment of the Court and only to the extent it affirms the trial court’s judgment and assesses cost against Appellant. A separate opinion will not issue.)