Randal Law v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers' Compensation Subsequent Injury Fund, Jeff Nelson, Kara MacE, and Blaise Gerstenlauer

Vacated and Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 29, 2025

In The

Fifteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 15-24-00097-CV

RANDAL LAW, Appellant
V.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE – DIVISION OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION SUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND, JEFF NELSON, KARA
MACE, AND BLAISE GERSTENLAUER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 459th District Court
Travis County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-24-003462

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Randall Law, a pro se appellant, brings this appeal from the trial court’s order
granting a plea to the jurisdiction dismissing the claims against the Texas
Department of Insurance and its representatives (TDI). 1 Because we find this case

1
The Defendants are Commissioner Jeff Nelson, General Counsel Kara Mace; and the
Administrator of the Subsequent Injury Fund, Blaise Gerstenlauer.
moot, we dismiss the appeal and the case.

TDI is charged with administering the Subsequent Injury Fund, which pays
income benefits to eligible persons for life. By statute, “entitlement to income
benefits under this chapter terminates on the death of the employee.” Tex. LABOR
CODE § 408.081.

Law has been receiving benefits since 2003, and pleaded that “over the past
two decades Plaintiff has only had to fill out one certified verification paper and
return it on an Annual Basis” to prove he was still eligible. But he took umbrage
when TDI began making monthly phone calls to verify that he was still living. In
April of 2024, he filed suit alleging that the monthly calls are “bullying, harassing”
and intimidating, and are causing him “great pain, suffering, worry, and stress.” But
he never alleges that he has been deprived of any benefits, except that one payment
was “one week late.”

TDI filed a plea to the jurisdiction seeking dismissal because Law’s claims
were barred by sovereign immunity. The 459th District Court of Travis County
granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Law’s suit without prejudice on
August 27, 2024. This appeal followed.

Law claims the monthly phone calls violate §§ 408.161 and 408.201 of the
Labor Code because TDI is attempting to deprive him of his benefits. But Law never
pleads that he has lost a penny of his benefits. More importantly, neither of those
sections provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity.2

The only exception to immunity Law has raised is the ultra vires exception.
He alleged that by shifting from annual written to monthly telephonic verification of

2
See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.034; Campbellton Rd., Ltd. v. City of San Antonio, 688 S.W.3d
105, 114 (Tex. 2024).

2
eligibility, TDI committed an ultra vires act.

We need not decide whether TDI’s decision to change how it verifies
eligibility represents a “rule” (which requires formal rulemaking proceedings) or a
statement regarding its own “internal management” (which does not).3 But it is
undisputed that in September of 2024 the agency formally adopted the monthly
verification rule in Section 131.5 of the Texas Administrative Code, effective
February 18, 2025.4

“The remedy for an ultra vires act by a government official is prospective
injunctive relief.” City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 376 (Tex. 2009). To
the extent TDI’s phone calls were ultra vires because they were not formally adopted
by rule, formal adoption of that rule by TDI rendered the relief sought by Law moot,
as “the court can no longer grant the requested relief or otherwise affect the parties'
rights or interests.” Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power
Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 634–35 (Tex. 2021).5

The trial court dismissed Law’s suit without prejudice before TDI’s telephone
rule became effective. Because his claims have been rendered moot by that
development, we vacate the trial court’s order and dismiss his claims with prejudice.

3
See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 2001.003(6) (“ ‘Rule’: (A) means a state agency statement of
general applicability that: (i) implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy; or (ii) describes
the procedure or practice requirements of a state agency; (B) includes the amendment or repeal of
a prior rule; and (C) does not include a statement regarding only the internal management or
organization of a state agency and not affecting private rights or procedures.”).
4
See 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 131.5 (Tex. Dep’t of Ins., Verification by the Subsequent
Injury Fund”). Law challenges the new rule in his reply brief in this Court, but that dispute was
not pleaded below and so is not before us.
5
Law also pleaded for attorney’s fees, but he has appeared pro se since filing, and “a party
must be represented by an attorney to secure an award of attorney’s fees.” Rohrmoos Venture v.
UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469, 488 (Tex. 2019).

3
/s/ Scott A. Brister
Scott A. Brister
Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.

4