Court Opinion

ID: 4040797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 22:37:45.339334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:38.721608
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                       03-14-00457-CV
                                                                              3763130
                                                             THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                        AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                                 1/14/2015 11:15:32 AM
                                                                      JEFFREY D. KYLE
                                                                                CLERK

        No. 03-14-00457-CV                         FILED IN
                                            3rd COURT OF APPEALS
            IN THE   THIRD COURT OF APPEALS      AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                            1/14/2015 11:15:32 AM
                     AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                JEFFREY D. KYLE
                                                     Clerk

                      LINDA BALDWIN,
                                            Appellant

                             V.

        ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                    Appellee

          Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00457-CV
          Trial Court Number: No. D-1-GN-13-001281

                     APPELLEE’S BRIEF

                                      Jessica M. MacCarty
                                      State Bar No. 24077822
                                      jmm@fol.com
                                      Robert D. Stokes
                                      State Bar No. 19274100
                                      Lynette L. Phillips
                                      State Bar No. 15937770
                                      Flahive, Ogden & Latson
                                      P.O. Box 201329
                                      Austin, Texas 78720
                                      Telephone: (512) 435-2150
                                      Facsimile: (512) 241-3305

APPELLEE REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT
                                 No. 03-14-00457-CV

                    IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
                           AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

                                 LINDA BALDWIN,
                                                        Appellant

                                        V.

              ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                          Appellee

                  Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00457-CV
                  Trial Court Number: No. D-1-GN-13-001281

                                 APPELLEE’S BRIEF

                                                  Jessica M. MacCarty
                                                  State Bar No. 24077822
                                                  Robert D. Stokes
                                                  State Bar No. 19274100
                                                  Lynette L. Phillips
                                                  State Bar No. 15937770
                                                  Flahive, Ogden & Latson
                                                  P.O. Box 201329
                                                  Austin, Texas 78720
                                                  Telephone: (512) 435-2150
                                                  Facsimile: (512) 241-3305

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                ii
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                       IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Linda Baldwin                          Zurich American Insurance
10151 Dorrell Lane #1164               Company
Las Vegas, Nevada 89166                Corporation Service Company
Appellant, Pro Se                      211 East 7th Street, Suite 620
                                       Austin, Texas 78701
                                       Appellee

Hon. Gisela Triana                     Jessica M. MacCarty
200th District Court                   Flahive, Ogden & Latson
1000 Guadalupe Street, 5th Floor       P.O. Drawer 201329
Austin, TX 78701                       Austin, Texas 78720
Trial Court                            Appellate Counsel for Appellee

                                       Robert D. Stokes
                                       Flahive, Ogden & Latson
                                       P.O. Drawer 201329
                                       Austin, Texas 78720
                                       Appellate Counsel for Appellee

                                       Lynette Phillips
                                       Flahive, Ogden & Latson
                                       P.O. Drawer 201329
                                       Austin, Texas 78720
                                       Trial and Appellate Counsel for
                                       Appellee

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                           iii
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................................................ iii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... iv
Index of Authorities ...................................................................................................v
Statement of the Case.............................................................................................. vii
Issue Presented ....................................................................................................... viii
         Issue No. One: Does the trial court lack subject matter
         jurisdiction when an employee in a workers’
         compensation case files for judicial review after the 45
         day deadline specified in the Texas Labor Code lapses? ............................ viii
Statement of Facts ......................................................................................................2
Summary of the Argument.........................................................................................5
Argument....................................................................................................................6
         Issue No. One: Does the trial court lack subject matter
         jurisdiction when an employee in a workers’
         compensation case files for judicial review after the 45
         day deadline specified in the Texas Labor Code lapses? ................................6
         A. Standard Of Review. ............................................................................... 7
         B.      The 45 Day Deadline Is Jurisdictional And
                 Mandatory. .............................................................................................. 7
         C.      Baldwin Has Failed To Challenge The Plea To The
                 Jurisdiction As The Proper Means To Dismiss Her
                 Case. ...................................................................................................... 10
Prayer .......................................................................................................................11
Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................12
Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................12

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                                                                iv
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                                           INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Argonaut Sw. Ins. Co. v. Walker, 64 S.W.3d 654 (Tex.
 App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied) ......................................................................8

Cervantes v. Tyson Food, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App.—
 El Paso 2003, pet. denied) .......................................................................................8

Davis v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 408 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.
 App.—Amarillo 2012, pet. denied) ........................................................................8

Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Miranda, 293 S.W.3d 620
 (Tex. App—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) .................................................................8

Johnson v. United Parcel Serv., 36 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App.—
  Dallas 2001, pet. denied).........................................................................................8

LeBlanc v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., 98 S.W.3d 786 (Tex.
 App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) ......................................................................8

Morales v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., No. 01-14-00429-
 CV, 2014 WL 7340374 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
 Dec. 18, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) .................................................................7, 8

Sunbeam Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Texas Workers' Comp. Ins.
 Facility, 71 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App. 2002) ...........................................................10

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217
 (Tex. 2004) ..............................................................................................................7

Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Backner, 74 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. App.—
 Waco 2002, no pet.) ................................................................................................8

Tex. Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Burns, 209

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                                                            v
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
  S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) ..............................................8

TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

Tex.R.App. P. 38.3 ...................................................................................................10

STATUTES

Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 410.252 .................................................................... 1, 3, 5, 7

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                                                        vi
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the     Linda Baldwin (Baldwin or the employee) asserted that she
Case              sustained a compensable injury on March 1, 2006. Zurich
                  contended that she had not sustained a compensable injury on
                  this date or, in the alternative, argued that it was relieved of
                  liability.

                  Baldwin did sustain a compensable injury on August 20, 2007.
                  However, she asserted that the injury included a myriad of
                  conditions that Zurich disputed.

Course of         The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’
Proceedings       Compensation (the Division or DWC) determined that Baldwin
                  did not sustain a compensable injury on March 1, 2006 and that
                  Zurich was relieved of liability. CR 448-52. With regard to the
                  August 20, 2007 claim that Zurich accepted, the Division found
                  that the compensable injury did not include the disputed
                  diagnoses. CR 448-52.

                  Baldwin filed her first petition in district court on October 5,
                  2012. CR 473. Baldwin brought tort claims against Zurich but
                  did not appeal the decision of the Division. CR 473-81. The
                  court dismissed the suit on January 3, 2013. CR 495.

                  On April 28, 2013, Baldwin filed a new petition to request
                  review of the Division’s decision. CR 454-61. Zurich filed an
                  amended answer and plea to the jurisdiction asserting that
                  Baldwin did not appeal the Division’s decision within 45 days
                  pursuant to Texas Labor Code §410.252(a) and therefore the
                  trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Trial Court’s     The Hon. Judge Triana dismissed the case for lack of subject
Disposition       matter jurisdiction on March 21, 2014.

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                   vii
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                                 ISSUES PRESENTED

      ISSUE NO. ONE: DOES     THE TRIAL COURT LACK SUBJECT MATTER
      JURISDICTION WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
      CASE FILES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER THE 45 DAY DEADLINE
      SPECIFIED IN THE TEXAS LABOR CODE LAPSES?

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                      viii
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                                 No. 03-14-00457-CV

                    IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
                           AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

                                 LINDA BALDWIN,
                                                           Appellant

                                        V.

                ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                             Appellee

                                 APPELLEE’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
      The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act requires a party seeking judicial

review from a decision rendered by the Division to file suit not later than 45 days

after the date the Division mailed the decision. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.252(a).

This is an appeal of the trial court’s proper decision to grant Zurich’s plea to the

jurisdiction.

      The underlying case is a workers’ compensation suit brought by Baldwin

after the Division determined that she had not sustained a compensable injury on

March 1, 2006 and that furthermore, the compensable injury she sustained on

August 20, 2007 did not extend to and include diagnoses Zurich disputed.

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                     1
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
However, Baldwin failed to file a petition seeking review of the Division decision

within 45 days.

      Zurich moved to dismiss based on the grounds that Baldwin did not file suit

within the requisite time period and the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction

over the suit. The trial court granted the plea and dismissed the suit. The district

court’s grant of the plea was proper and Zurich requests that this Court affirm the

dismissal.

                                 STATEMENT OF FACTS

      Baldwin was employed by Extended Stay Inc./HVM LLC as a laundry

attendant in a hotel for both alleged dates of injury. CR 450. The Division heard

two separate workers’ compensation disputes at the Contested Case Hearing

(CCH) that took place on June 14, 2012. CR-448.

      The first case was docket number AU-11148351-01-CC-HD46. Id. The three

issues before the Hearing Officer were: 1) Did Baldwin sustain a compensable

injury on March 1, 2006; 2) Is Zurich relieved of liability due to Baldwin’s failure

to timely notify her employer of a work injury; and 3) Is Zurich relieved of liability

due to Baldwin’s failure to timely file a claim with the Division. Id.

      The second case was docket number AU-08103562-03-CC-HD46. Id.

Zurich accepted a claim with August 20, 2007 as the date of injury. Id. The sole

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                       2
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the compensable injury of August

20, 2007 extended to include plantar fasciitis of the left foot, left ankle sprain and

sprain of the left anterior talofibular ligament, osteoarthritis of the left knee and left

lower extremity, left knee crepitus, left shoulder impingement syndrome, and

osteoarthritis of the left forearm and radiocapitellar joint of the right elbow.

CR448-49.

      The Hearing Officer found in Zurich’s favor on all issues for both docket

numbers in a decision signed on June 22, 2012. CR 451-52. Baldwin requested

review with the Appeals Panel, but on September 4, 2012, the Panel issued notice

that the Hearing Officer’s Decision and Order had become final. CR 444. Baldwin

then had 45 days from the date the Division mailed the notice from the Appeals

Panel to file a request for judicial review of the Division’s decision in district

court. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.252(a). Since the statute provides that the notice

is deemed mailed five days after the notice is filed with the Division, Baldwin

essentially had 50 days from September 4, 2012. Id. October 25, 2012 was

therefore the deadline. RR 7.

      Baldwin filed a petition on October 5, 2012, which was designated cause

number D-1-GN-12 003139. CR 473. However, in that petition, Baldwin only

alleged bad faith causes of action against Zurich and only requested relief in the

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                           3
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
form of economic damages. CR 473-80. Baldwin did not request review of the

Division’s decision in the October 5, 2012 petition and therefore did not comply

with Texas Labor Code § 410.252(a).

      Judge Tim Sulak granted Zurich’s No Evidence Motion for Summary

Judgment, Special Exceptions, and Plea to the Jurisdiction on January 3, 2013. CR

348. Judge Sulak clearly indicated in his order that Baldwin’s suit was dismissed in

its entirety and that the order was final and appealable. Id. That order was not

appealed and Judge Sulak’s ruling is not before this Court.

      Seven months after the appeals panel mailed its decision to her, on April 18,

2013, Baldwin filed a second petition designated cause number D-1-GN-13-

001281. CR 454. Baldwin re-plead her bad faith causes of action, but for the first

time asserted that she was appealing the Division’s decision regarding her 2006

and 2007 injuries. CR 454-61. Zurich filed another motion for partial summary

judgment based on the affirmative defense of res judicata. CR 20. Zurich argued

that Baldwin had already asserted tort and extra-contractual causes of action in her

first suit and that they had been dismissed via the order from Judge Sulak. Id.

      On July 17, 2013, Judge Rhonda Hurley signed an order granting the motion

for partial summary judgment based on res judicata. CR 470. Judge Hurley stated

that the motion was granted “as to all claims, except for the appeal of Ms.

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                     4
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
Baldwin’s worker’s compensation claims from the Texas Department of Insurance,

Division of Workers Compensation, which remains unaffected by this Order.” Id.

      Zurich then filed an amended original answer and plea to the jurisdiction on

February 21, 2014. CR 439. Zurich argued Baldwin did not request review of the

Division’s decision until April 18, 2013 and thus the trial court had no jurisdiction

over the second lawsuit. CR 439-41. Judge Gisela Triana granted the plea and

dismissed Baldwin’s remaining claims via order signed March 21, 2014. CR 787.

This is the only order of the three signed orders that has been appealed.

                          SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

      The Texas Labor Code states that a request for judicial review of a Division

decision in a Texas workers’ compensation case must be filed within 45 days of

the Division’s decision. While Baldwin filed a petition within the 45-day limit, she

plead bad faith causes of action and failed to indicate in her pleadings that she was

seeking review of the adverse Division decision. Those causes of action were

dismissed via summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction.

      Baldwin then filed a second petition where she requested review of the

Division’s determinations, but that petition was not filed within 45 days. As a

result, jurisdiction was not conferred to the trial court and the grant of the plea to

the jurisdiction was proper.

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                       5
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                                               ARGUMENT

        The central issue in this workers’ compensation case is whether the trial

court had jurisdiction over Baldwin’s appeal of the Division’s decision given that

she did not file a petition requesting review within the 45 day time limit. TEX. LAB.

CODE ANN. § 410.252(a).1 Because Baldwin did not file a petition seeking to

appeal the Division decision within the requisite time period, this Court should

affirm the trial court’s judgment that dismisses the suit for want of jurisdiction.

        ISSUE NO. ONE: DOES     THE TRIAL COURT LACK SUBJECT MATTER
        JURISDICTION WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
        CASE FILES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER THE 45 DAY DEADLINE
        SPECIFIED IN THE TEXAS LABOR CODE LAPSES?

        It is undisputed that Baldwin had until October 25, 2012 to file a petition

requesting a review of the Division’s decision. Baldwin failed to meet that deadline

and the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider a suit for judicial review

of the Division’s order. The plea to the jurisdiction was properly granted.

        The statutory 45-day deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional. Baldwin has

not claimed, at either the trial court level or the appellate level, that a plea to the

jurisdiction is not a proper mechanism to challenge a late-filed workers’

compensation appeal. Any such argument has been waived.

1
 Appellee does not dispute that Baldwin timely filed a request for review of the Hearing Officer’s
decision with the Appeals Panel. Instead, Zurich asserts that Baldwin failed to timely file suit in district
court seeking judicial review of the Division’s determination. Baldwin’s assertion in this appeal that the

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                                                 6
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
    A. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
        Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. Tex.

Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). Whether

a pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate a trial court's subject

matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Id. Likewise, whether

undisputed evidence of jurisdictional facts establishes a trial court's jurisdiction is

also a question of law. Id. When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings,

the court should determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively

demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause. Id. The court should construe

the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff and look to the pleader’s intent. Id.

If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the

jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to

amend. Id.

    B. THE 45 DAY DEADLINE IS JURISDICTIONAL AND MANDATORY.
        The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act § 410.252(a) states that:

                A party may seek judicial review by filing suit not later
                than the 45th day after the date on which the division
                mailed the party the decision of the appeals panel. For
                purposes of this section, the mailing date is considered to
                be the fifth day after the date the decision of the appeals
                panel was filed with the division.

Appeals Panel dismissed her appeal due to untimely filing and that Zurich’s plea is based on that
determination is inaccurate. CR 444.

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                                      7
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
           Eight Texas appellate courts have held that the 45 day deadline is mandatory

and jurisdictional in nature, and if the suit is not timely filed, the trial court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction. Davis v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 408 S.W.3d 1, 6

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, pet. denied); Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v.

Miranda, 293 S.W.3d 620, 624 (Tex. App—San Antonio 2009, no pet.); Tex. Mun.

League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Burns, 209 S.W.3d 806, 812 n. 9 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.); LeBlanc v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., 98 S.W.3d
786, 787 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); Johnson v. United Parcel

Serv., 36 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied); Argonaut Sw.

Ins. Co. v. Walker, 64 S.W.3d 654, 657 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied);

Morales v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., No. 01-14-00429-CV, 2014 WL
7340374, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 18, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem.

op.); See Cervantes v. Tyson Food, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex. App.—El Paso

2003, pet. denied).2

           The Appeals Panel issued notice that the Hearing Officer’s decision and

order had become final on September 4, 2012.CR 444. Baldwin had 50 days from

that date to file suit seeking judicial review. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.252(a).

Baldwin did not file a petition in district court seeking review of the Division’s

2
    But see Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Backner, 74 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.).

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                                    8
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
decision until April 18, 2013. CR 454. The trial court therefore did not have

jurisdiction to hear Baldwin’s suit and properly granted Zurich’s plea to the

jurisdiction.

      Baldwin in her briefing asserts that the original petition she filed on October

5, 2012 contains a request for judicial review of the Division’s decision and

therefore she met the 45 day deadline. Appellant’s Brief, pg. 4. In that petition,

Baldwin complains that Zurich failed to send the designated doctor in the

underlying administrative action all of her medical records, that the carrier denied

certain medications, and that Zurich exhibited bad faith practices. CR 28-36. She

requested recovery of economic damages including loss of earnings as well as

mental anguish. CR 34. However, nowhere in the petition did she assert that she

was seeking judicial review of the Division’s decision or that she had been harmed

or aggrieved by the Hearing Officer’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. As

such, the four corners of the petition reflect that Baldwin failed to request judicial

review by filing suit on October 5, 2012.

      Furthermore, Judge Sulak dismissed the case related to the October 5, 2012

case in its entirety by order signed January 3, 2013. Baldwin did not appeal that

dismissal. Therefore, even if Baldwin’s argument were correct that she raised a

request for judicial review in that petition, Baldwin failed to perfect an appeal from

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                       9
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
that order of dismissal.

   C. BALDWIN HAS FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
      AS THE PROPER MEANS TO DISMISS HER CASE.
   Where a claimant has failed to challenge the use of a plea to the jurisdiction to

defeat a late-filed request for judicial review, Texas appellate courts have refused

to remand a case where the trial court granted the plea. See Morales v. Travelers

Indem. Co. of Conn., No. 01-14-00429-CV, 2014 WL 7340374, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 18, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

   Baldwin has challenged the trial court’s decision to grant the plea. She has also

argued that the plea was not a proper method for challenging her pleadings because

it challenged “the validity of the merits of Ms. Baldwin’s claim, not the jurisdiction

of the district court.” Appellant’s Brief, pg. 24-25. However, she does not contend

that a plea to the jurisdiction is an improper vehicle to request relief from the trial

court where the request for judicial review from the Division decision was filed

after the 45 day time limit lapsed. Accordingly, she has waived such argument by

failing to raise it in her initial brief. See Tex.R.App. P. 38.3; Sunbeam Envtl.

Servs., Inc. v. Texas Workers' Comp. Ins. Facility, 71 S.W.3d 846, 851 (Tex. App.

2002).

   Baldwin failed to file a timely suit for judicial review of the Division’s decision

and the trial court therefore properly granted the plea to the jurisdiction.

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                        10
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                                      PRAYER

      Zurich respectfully requests that this Court uphold the decision of the trial

court to grant Zurich’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss the suit, or for such

other and further relief to which Petitioner may have shown itself to be entitled.

                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                       FLAHIVE, OGDEN & LATSON
                                       P. O. Drawer 13367
                                       Capitol Station
                                       Austin, Texas 78711
                                       512-477-4405
                                       512-867-1700 Fax

                                       /S/ Jessica M. MacCarty
                                       Jessica M. MacCarty
                                       State Bar No. 24077822
                                       Robert D. Stokes
                                       State Bar No. 19274100

                                       Attorneys for Appellee
                                       Zurich American Insurance Company

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                       11
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                             CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

      In accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B), the undersigned counsel

certifies that the document attached hereto contains 3,422 words as measured by

the word count of the computer program used to prepare the document.

                                      /S/ Jessica M. MacCarty_
                                      Jessica M. MacCarty
                                      State Bar No. 24077822
                                      Attorney for Appellee

                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Appellee’s Brief has been

forwarded by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this 12th day of January,

2015 to:

                                      Linda Baldwin
                                      10151 Dorrell Lane #1164
                                      Las Vegas, Nevada 89166
                                      Appellant

                                      /S/ Jessica M. MacCarty_
                                      Jessica M. MacCarty

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                    12
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee
                                 No. 03-14-00457-CV

                    IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
                           AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

                                 LINDA BALDWIN,
                                                           Appellant

                                        V.

              ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                          Appellee

                     APPENDIX TO APPELLEE’S BRIEF

   1. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation
      Contested Case Hearing Decision and Order, signed June 22, 2012

   2. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation
      Appeals Panel Notice of Decision, dated September 4, 2012

   3. Baldwin’s Original Petition, filed October 5, 2012

   4. Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Special
      Exceptions, and Plea to the Jurisdiction with Dismissal by Judge Tim Sulak,
      dated January 3, 2013

   5. Baldwin’s Original Petition, filed April 18, 2013

   6. Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Judge
      Rhonda Hurley, dated July 17, 2013

   7. Order of Dismissal by Judge Gisela Triana, dated March 21, 2014

   8. TEX. LABOR CODE ANN. § 410.252

Baldwin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.                                                  13
No. 03-14-00457-CV
Brief of the Appellee