Court Opinion

ID: 9555463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-12 09:12:27.893925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:49.166593
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00180-CV

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

KELVIN RICH,                                     §      APPEAL FROM THE
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      TEXAS WORKFORCE

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION,
APPELLEE                                         §      COMMISSION

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
        On July 11, 2023, Kelvin Rich filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking reversal of a
decision by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). On July 13, the Clerk of this Court
notified Appellant that his notice of appeal failed to show this Court’s jurisdiction, i.e., the TWC
rendered the decision, and pursuant to Chapter 212 of the Texas Labor Code, this Court does not
have jurisdiction of the appeal. The notice further advised that the appeal would be dismissed on
or before July 24, unless the information was amended to show this Court’s jurisdiction.
Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal, which still fails to establish this Court’s
jurisdiction.
        A party aggrieved by a final decision of the TWC may obtain judicial review of the
decision by bringing an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for review of the decision
against the commission on or after the date on which the decision is final, and not later than the
fourteenth day after that date. TEX. LABOR CODE ANN. § 212.201(a) (West 2015). Judicial
review is by trial de novo “in which the trial court determines whether substantial evidence
supports the TWC’s ruling.” Id. § 212.202(a) (West 2015); Spicer v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n,
430 S.W.3d 526, 532 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (emphasis added); see Collingsworth
Gen. Hosp. v. Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tex. 1998). “The legislature has authorized
initial judicial review of a Texas Workforce Commission decision by trial de novo, not by direct

                                                 1
review in a court of appeals.” Wilder v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, No. 04-22-00111-CV, 2022
WL 789336, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 16, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.);
see Tex. Workforce Comm’n v. Wichita Cty., 548 S.W.3d 489, 492, n.2 (Tex. 2018) (noting that
judicial review of a final TWC decision is based on substantial evidence rule and trial court may
set aside decision if it was made without regard to law or facts and, therefore, unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious).
         Because this Court is not the proper forum for seeking a trial de novo of the TWC’s
decision, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Wilder, 2022 WL 789336, at *2
(dismissing appeal from TWC decision for want of jurisdiction).
Opinion delivered August 9, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                          2
                                 COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                          AUGUST 9, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00180-CV

                                   KELVIN RICH,
                                     Appellant
                                        V.
                           TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION,
                                     Appellee

                          Appeal from the Texas Workforce Commision
                                    (Tr.Ct.No. TWC-3057987-3)

                   THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and
that the appeal should be dismissed.
                    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J

                                                     3