Source: http://texas-opinions.com/09-ERA-v-Duenez-Tex-2009-Dissent-by-Wainwright-concluding-that-Legis-gave-exclusive-jurisdiction-to-ERS-over-subrogation-dispute.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:57:00+00:00

Document:
applicable law. Justice Johnson joined this dissent.
reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
Justice Wainwright, joined by Justice Johnson, dissenting.
subrogation rights in the benefits plan.
exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute. Because the Court does not, I respectfully dissent.
benefits before the Duenezes changed insurers.
the court of appeals affirmed. 221 S.W.3d 809, 815.
courts lack jurisdiction over the dispute and must dismiss claims within the agency’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Id.; Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 340 (Tex. 2006).
which we review de novo. David McDavid Nissan, 84 S.W.3d at 221; Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.
recovery to the extent of benefits provided.
tortfeasor, whether through settlement or otherwise.
legitimate benefits paid pursuant to its contractual subrogation rights is not related to payment of a claim.
which coverage was not disputed); Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 213 (Tex.
merely determining the actual payment of a claim. See § 1551.352.
ERS’s final decision under a substantial evidence scope of review. Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2001.171, .174.
238, 256 (Tex. 2008). The statute grants exclusive authority to determine “all questions relating to . . .
Subrogation relates to the payment of a claim. See Mid-Continent Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 236 S.W.
debt and is limited to the amount of payments made by the subrogee to the subrogor. Mid-Continent, 236 S.
Plan or a plan participant’s recovery should be ERS’s initial decision to make.
Duenezes received hundreds of thousands of dollars.
(2) “the Board’s inability to award monetary damages.” Id. at 207–08.
suggested that the Legislature intended to replace common law remedies with administrative remedies. Id.
resolve the types of claims asserted bears on the scope of the legislative grant of jurisdiction.
would be clear that the Legislature did not intend to extend exclusive jurisdiction that far. See Butnaru, 84 S.
for subrogation does not limit ERS’s jurisdiction. See In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 321–22 (Tex.
parties’ rights and obligations.” Id. Hence, the dispute is much different from the one addressed in Butnaru.
See 84 S.W.3d at 206.
the Legislature vests exclusive jurisdiction in an agency, exhaustion of administrative remedies is required.”).
can accommodate the subrogation dispute at issue here.
remedies to be used in subrogation disputes. Tex. Ins. Code §§ 1551.014, .052.
The Court relies on its assertion that ERS’s procedures were never designed for collecting a claim. ___ S.W.
judgment and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
S.W.3d 674, 675 (Tex. 2006). The Duenezes pursued a declaratory judgment that the care was covered. Id.
alcohol on the day of the accident, obtaining a $35 million jury verdict that the court of appeals affirmed. F.F.
responsibility. Id. at 683, 694.
is entitled to deference if: (1) it is reasonable, and (2) it does not conflict with the statute’s plain language.
collection of transition charges, we held that the Commission did not err. Id.; see also State v. Pub. Utils.
by the administrative agency charged with its enforcement is entitled to great weight”).
Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body.” Tex. Const. art. V, § 8.
later repealed and recodified with non-substantive revisions. See Act of May 22, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch.
are to the current version of the Act.
any other remedy provided by law”).
an action in trial court on its behalf. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.202.
8 Clearly, then, filing suit is not a prerequisite to exhausting administrative remedies, as the Court suggests.
Duenezes, unhappy with the result, or by ERS, to enforce the decision of the administrative body.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1551
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 2001