Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein, PC and Daniel Miramontes v. Ace American Insurance Company

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00215-CV

Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein, PC and Daniel Miramontes, Appellants

v.

Ace American Insurance Company, Appellee

FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-24-004813, THE HONORABLE JESSICA MANGRUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case involves the question of how attorney’s fees should be awarded in certain

workers compensation act cases for supplemental income benefits. Because the appellants did not

challenge the final judgment awarding fees out of their recovery, we affirm.

In January 2011, Daniel Miramontes sustained a workplace injury compensable

under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. His impairment rating was assessed at

fifteen percent or more, which means he is entitled to claim supplemental income benefits. See

28 Tex. Admin. Code § 130.102 (2018) (Tex. Dep’t of Ins., Eligibility for Supplemental Income

Benefits; Amount) (outlining eligibility and requirements for supplemental income benefits);

Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 514 (Tex. 1995) (“Supplemental

income benefits provide long-term disability compensation” and are payable “only if the claimant

has an impairment rating of 15 percent or more and is earning less than 80% of his or her preinjury

average weekly wage as a direct result of the injury.”); see generally Tex. Lab. Code §§ 408.141–
.151 (Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Subchapter H: Supplemental Income Benefits). However,

like all qualified claimants, Miramontes must establish his eligibility for these benefits with the

applicable insurance carrier every quarter. See 28 Tex. Admin. Code § 130.104(a) (2009) (Tex.

Dep’t of Ins., Determination of Entitlement or Non-entitlement for Subsequent Quarters) (“After

the Division [of Workers’ Compensation] has made a determination of entitlement or

non-entitlement for supplemental income benefits for the first quarter, the insurance carrier shall

make determinations for subsequent quarters.”); Garcia, 893 S.W.2d at 514 (noting that

supplemental income benefits are “recalculated every quarter”).

Miramontes and Ace American Insurance Company disagreed about his

entitlement to supplemental income benefits for four quarters in 2016 and 2017. An

administrative-law judge for the Division of Workers’ Compensation entered an order concluding

that Miramontes was not entitled to supplemental income benefits for any of the four disputed

quarters, and an appeals panel of the Division of Workers’ Compensation affirmed. See Tex. Lab.

Code §§ 410.151 (discussing claimant’s entitlement to contested-case hearing before

administrative-law judge), .202 (providing process for claimant to appeal decision of

administrative-law judge). Miramontes sought judicial review and secured a jury verdict that he

was entitled to supplemental income benefits for all four contested quarters. See id. §§ 410.251–

.308 (providing terms for judicial review following exhaustion of administrative remedies);

Garcia, 893 S.W.2d at 515 (noting that “final decision may be appealed to the courts under what

might best be described as modified de novo review”). The final judgment further awarded to

Miramontes’s attorneys, the Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein, $80,215.42 in fees and expenses

for work performed from January 2018 through November 2022. But the order stated that “[t]his

judgment does not tax [Miramontes’s] attorney fees and expenses against Defendant.” Neither

2
Miramontes nor Ace American Insurance Company appealed that final judgment, which was

signed on December 26, 2022.

In August 2023, Miramontes and the Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein

(collectively, Appellants) filed a claim for attorney’s fees with the Division of Workers’

Compensation, seeking “an order assessing the fees previously awarded to the Plaintiff Law

Offices of Miller & Bicklein, PC to be paid by the Defendant [Ace American Insurance Company]

instead of from the benefits of the Plaintiff Daniel Miramontes.” Among other things, the

January 2024 final administrative decision concluded that the Division of Workers’ Compensation

“does not have jurisdiction over the award of $80,215.42 of attorney fees that was ordered by Final

Judgment” in the prior suit. The decision explained:

The claimant and his firm are asking the judge to determine and award fees and
expenses which were accumulated during the litigation of this claim in district
court. On December 26, 2022, the district court judge signed a Final Judgment
awarding fees and expenses in the amount of $80,215.42. The Final Judgment
noted that this amount would not be assessed against the insurance carrier. Any
disagreement with the Final Judgment would need to be appealed to a court of
competent jurisdiction, which, in this case, the Division is not. Therefore, the
Division does not have jurisdiction to determine the award of fees previously
determined by district court judgment.

An administrative appeals panel affirmed. In April 2024, Appellants filed an

original petition in district court appealing those decisions. Ace American Insurance Company

filed a traditional motion for summary judgment, arguing that because Miramontes failed to appeal

the December 2022 final judgment, the Division of Workers’ Compensation lacked jurisdiction to

review its attorney’s fees award. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed

Appellants’ claims.

3
On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the

attorney’s fees issue until after Miramontes made a claim for attorney’s fees with the Division of

Workers’ Compensation—which, they maintain, Miramontes could not do until after he had a final

determination as to his supplemental income benefits eligibility in the December 2022 final

judgment. That is, Appellants maintain that once Miramontes established his entitlement to

supplemental income benefits at the district court level, he then had to return to the Division of

Workers’ Compensation to make an administrative claim for attorney’s fees in the first instance.

But neither the statute nor caselaw Appellants urge in their favor supports their position.

Appellants argue that under Section 408.147(c), the attorney’s fees issue “must go

back and be presented to the [Division of Workers’ Compensation].” But that statute provides:

If an insurance carrier disputes the commissioner’s determination that an employee
is entitled to supplemental income benefits or the amount of supplemental income
benefits due and the employee prevails on any disputed issue, the insurance carrier
is liable for reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred by the employee as a
result of the insurance carrier’s dispute and for supplemental income benefits
accrued but not paid and interest on that amount, according to Section 408.064.

Tex. Lab. Code § 408.147(c). This statute is an exception to the general rule that attorney’s fees

in a workers’ compensation case are paid out of the claimant’s recovery. Travelers Indem. Co. of

Conn. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. 1996). But Section 408.147(c) is inapplicable to

this case because Ace American Insurance Company did not dispute the administrative

determination that Miramontes is entitled to supplemental income benefits or the amount thereof;

Miramontes contested the initial determination that he was not entitled to supplemental income

benefits. See Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baker, 292 S.W.3d 798, 803 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009,

no pet.) (“[Section 408.147(c)] is equally clear and unambiguous that attorney’s fees are not

4
recoverable when the employee disputes an initial Commission finding that the employee is not

entitled to [supplemental income benefits].”).

Contrary to Appellants’ arguments otherwise, cases interpreting attorney’s fees

issues in supplemental income benefits cases conclude that the attorney’s fees issue may be

decided at the district court’s judicial review level, as it was here. See Texas Prop. & Cas. Guar.

Ass’n v. National Am. Ins., 208 S.W.3d 523, 533–35 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied)

(discussing issues on review before trial court in workers’ compensation administrative appeal,

including attorney’s fees disputes); see, e.g., Cigna Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Middleton, 63 S.W.3d 901,

902 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. denied) (reviewing attorney’s fees award on appeal from

supplemental income benefits case); cf. Baker, 292 S.W.3d at 803 (concluding trial court erred by

awarding claimant attorney’s fees under Section 408.147(c) when claimant, not insurance carrier,

disputed initial supplemental income benefits determination); Home Ins. v. Garcia, 74 S.W.3d 52,

59–60 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, no pet.) (same). Because Miramontes did not appeal the

December 2022 final judgment, including its provision that it “does not tax [Miramontes’s]

attorney fees and expenses against Defendant,” it became final. See Engelman Irrigation Dist.

v. Shields Bros., 514 S.W.3d 746, 750 (Tex. 2017) (discussing finality of judgments). The trial

court correctly concluded that the Division of Workers’ Compensation lacks jurisdiction to alter

Miramontes’s December 2022 attorney’s fees award.1

We affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing Appellants’ claims.

1
Miramontes does not characterize his suit as a collateral attack against a void judgment,
which may be brought at any time, nor does he suggest that the underlying judgment is void.
See PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 271–72 (Tex. 2012) (defining void judgment as
when “court rendering judgment had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of
the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, or no capacity to act,” and
noting that void judgment can be collaterally attacked at any time).
5
__________________________________________
Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: September 4, 2025

6