Jesus Juarez A/K/A Ismael Juarez v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-26-00222-CV

Jesus Juarez a/k/a Ismael Juarez, Appellant

v.

Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Appellee

On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge E. Alan Bennett, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2025-79-6

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant filed a pro se document in the trial court on a form provided

by the trial court clerk with the heading “Pro Se Appeal,” in which he appears

to be challenging the denial of his worker’s compensation claim, although it is

not entirely clear from the document. This is the second appeal filed by

Appellant this year using the same “Pro Se Appeal” form. The first appeal,

Juarez v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co., was dismissed by this Court for want of jurisdiction because the trial court clerk failed to properly process Juarez’s

appeal as a petition before the district court. Juarez v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co., No.

10-26-00042-CV, 2026 WL 538855, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 1869 (Tex. App.—

Waco Feb. 26, 2026, no pet. h.). It does not appear that any other proceedings

have occurred in the trial court until the filing of this new “Pro Se Appeal.”

By letter from the Clerk of this Court dated June 9, 2026, Appellant was

notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction

because there is no appealable order or judgment to appeal. The Clerk directed

Appellant to file a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, and

Appellant filed a response. In the response, Appellant states that he is

attempting to appeal “the written decision and order issued on November 18,

2025 by Nick Morgan Administrative Law Judge.” The written decision by the

administrative law judge was attached.

The Texas Workers' Compensation Act ("TWCA") provides that a party

who has exhausted his administrative remedies and is aggrieved by a final

decision of the appeals panel may seek judicial review in the district court. TEX.

LAB. CODE §§ 410.251-.252; Cont'l Cas. Ins. v. Functional Restoration Assocs.,

19 S.W.3d 393, 398 (Tex. 2000). In such event, the district court would review

the appeals panel's decision under a modified de novo standard of review.

Rodriguez v. Serv. Lloyds Ins., 997 S.W.2d 248, 253 (Tex. 1999); see TEX. LAB.

Juarez v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. Page 2 CODE § 410.304. However, for whatever reason, that has not taken place in

this proceeding. There has been no review by the district court. Accordingly,

this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal and we dismiss this

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 9, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed CV06

Juarez v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. Page 3