Continental Casualty Company v. the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners
This text of Continental Casualty Company v. the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Continental Casualty Company v. the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On September 11, 1997, the Board issued an opinion to chiropractors licensed in Texas concluding that manipulation under anesthesia and needle electromyography (EMG) (1) were within the scope of chiropractic practice. See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 201.002 (West 2001). Continental brought suit, contending that the Board's opinion improperly interpreted the statute. Continental alleged in its pleadings that it provides workers' compensation coverage to employers in Texas. As part of its obligations under the Workers' Compensation Act, Continental is liable for medical care provided to injured workers to treat compensable injuries. (2) Continental alleges that it now must pay chiropractors for services that chiropractors cannot legally perform. Continental does not allege the procedures themselves are illegal, but that chiropractors may not render these services. The Board filed a plea to the jurisdiction alleging, among other grounds, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because it would be rendering an impermissible advisory opinion. The trial court, in a general order, granted the plea to the jurisdiction.
Continental brings three issue on appeal: whether sovereign immunity bars Continental's claims against the Board under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act and the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) whether jurisdiction exists under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act for the trial court to consider Continental's claims; and whether there is a justiciable controversy between Continental and the Board. Because we conclude that the trial court would be rendering an impermissible advisory opinion if it assumed jurisdiction over the case, we will affirm the order of dismissal.
Advisory Opinions
A plea to the jurisdiction contests the district court's authority to consider a cause of action. H.G. Sledge, Inc. v. The Prospective Inv. & Trading Co., Ltd., 36 S.W.3d 597, 600 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied); Tsumi, Inc. v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't, 23 S.W.3d 58, 60 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied). Although a court may need to consider evidence in deciding certain pleas to the jurisdiction, the parties in this case offered no evidence. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000). Accordingly, we review only the factual allegations made in good faith in the plaintiff's petition. Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 224 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. 1949). This Court takes the allegations in the petitions as true. Id. (4) The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts to demonstrate the district court properly exercised its subject matter jurisdiction. See Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). Unless the face of the petition affirmatively demonstrates a lack of jurisdiction, the district court must liberally construe the allegations in favor of jurisdiction. Peek v. Equipment Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. 1989).
The separation-of-powers doctrine prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions. Texas Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444; Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Burch, 442 S.W.2d 331, 333 (Tex. 1969); Brinkley v. Texas Lottery Comm'n, 986 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, no pet.). The distinctive feature of an advisory opinion is that it decides an abstract question of law without binding the parties. Alabama State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 461 (1945); Texas Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444; Brinkley, 986 S.W.2d at 767. An opinion is advisory when the judgment sought would not constitute specific relief to a litigant. Brinkley, 986 S.W.2d at 767.
For the court to exercise jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment, the plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate a real dispute involving an immediate, concrete outcome. Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex. 1995). That is, a justiciable controversy must exist as to the rights and status of the parties and the controversy must be resolved by the declaration sought. Id. In the case of agency action, this normally means that the agency's interpretation or opinion regarding the statute must be enforced against the plaintiff. See Texas Comm'n of Licensing & Regulation v. Model Search Am., Inc., 953 S.W.2d 289, 292 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no writ); Sun Oil Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 311 S.W.2d 235, 237 (Tex. 1958).
Continental's Complaint
Continental complains that the Board has authorized chiropractors to perform certain procedures which Continental asserts are outside the scope of chiropractic practice. Because Continental provides workers' compensation insurance, it asserts it must pay for these procedures under the relevant rules of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. We first note that Continental's only claim of injury is that it must pay chiropractors for these services. Continental does not allege that the procedures themselves are illegal, only that chiropractors should not perform them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Continental Casualty Company v. the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-casualty-company-v-the-texas-board-of--texapp-2001.