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

ACCEPTED
15-24-00097-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/8/2025 2:24 PM
CAUSE NO: 15-24-00097-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
--------------------------------------------- FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
In the Court of Appeals 10/8/2025 2:24:03 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
for the FIFTEENTH Judicial District Austin, Texas Clerk

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 Judicial District Court, Travis County

MOTION FOR REHEARING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OPINION ISSUED ON
AUGUST 29, 2025

1
Comes Now Randal Law Plaintiff-Appellant in the above styled and
numbered cause and very respectfully request a Rehearing by the Fifteenth
Court of Appeals Justices of the Courts Judgment and Memorandum
Opinion issued on August 29th 2025. (TRAP: Rule 49.1)

Demonstrable error and misinterpretation of a fact or a legal point.

Plaintiff-Appellant was “Threatened” and we, as a crucial legal point with
the utmost respect/reverence, demand that the Texas State Courts inherently
must claim Jurisdiction in All Proper Jurisprudence when a Catastrophically
Injured individuals only source of income is threatened by the ultra vires
acts of others who do not comply with the Texas State Statutes and seek to
subjugate and convert the Texas State Statutes through their ultra vires acts
whether its by way of a departments “internal management” and its latter
corresponding “adopted rule” or some other department form. It sets a very
dangerous precedent when an arbitrarily adopted New Rule is allowed to
actually override the Texas State Statutes Enacted/Stated Intent.

1. ) The Judgment on august 29th 2025 ordered Plaintiff-Appellant “jointly
and severally to pay all costs incurred in this appeal ”. Thus a demonstrable
error had occurred as the clerks’ record clearly indicated (page 28-30) a
Affidavit of Indigence court approved on April 17, 2024.
We are very appreciative of the 15th Court of Appeals Correction of
Judgment issued in regard to this particular point on September 22, 2025. It
is very unfortunate that similar misjudgments have also occurred in the
Judicial Review Decision.
We very respectfully request that the remaining imperative demonstrable
errors, misinterpretations, misjudgments, and legal points also be properly
corrected, as this error has been properly corrected, through a rehearing of
this case that is before the Texas State Courts.

2
2. ) Memorandum Opinion - “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.”

Thus, a very unfortunate misinterpretation as the clerks record indicates
(page 68 - #18) the True Explication/Legal Point.

It is a preliminary reference/description of page 68 - #18 the Plea to be
GRANDFATHERED- IN with the main legal point being - “This time frame
carries very Great Weight as to the well "Established Equitable” and
"Merits." - meaning the then established - Statutes and Rules for over two
decades and should be Grandfathered in as such and apart from the Ultra
Vires Plea in the original amended petition and then followed on in response
to Appellees brief, in the reply brief that is before this court.

3.) Memorandum Opinion - 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.”

Thus, a very unfortunate misjudgment as the clerks record clearly indicates a
direct “Threat” was made, and the True Explication/Legal Points
(clerks record page 67 to 69, - #9,#14,#18,#23)

Clerk’s Record page 67 - #9,
“As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition,
Defendant Blaise Gerstenlauer Bullying, Harassment, Intimidation and
Direct Threat are direct cause of Plaintiff Randal Law
undergoing great pain, suffering, worry, stress and cost that have accrued
and are continuing to accrue”.

3
Clerks Record page 67 - #14
Unless Defendant Blaise Gerstenlauer is immediately enjoined and
restrained, Defendant will continue to Bully, Harass, Intimidate and
Threaten. Defendant's intent to engage in these *acts is evidenced by his
letter dated 4-3-2024. Plaintiff requests that the Court temporarily enjoin
Defendant from these *acts until the trial of this cause and that after final
hearing, the court permanently enjoin Defendant from continuing to Bully,
Harass, Intimidate and Threaten.

Clerk’s record page 68 - #18.
This together with the Bullying, Harassment, Intimidation and Threat to
Plaintiff Randal Law is now developing into *very troubling pattern of
conduct from Defendant Blaise Gerstenlauer TDI- DWC-SIF that has not
been encountered by the Plaintiff Randal Law within the last 24 years of
TDI-DWC-SIF.

* The Acts that are referred to and/or marked with a * here/elsewhere and
#18 are Ultra Vires Acts ! as was clearly established in the original
amended petition found in the clerks record page 69 - #23

Clerk’s record page 69 - #23.
Plaintiff Randal Law requests that the Court set this application for TRO and
temporary injunction for hearing, and after hearing the application,
issue TRO and temporary injunction against Defendant Blaise Gerstenlauer
TDI-DWC-SIF enjoining Defendant from All the Ultra Vires Conduct in
regard to All the arguments put forth by the plaintiff throughout this
Original Petition and Documentation thereof. Plaintiff Randal Law further
requests that the Court set this matter for trial and, upon final hearing,
permanently enjoin Defendant Blaise Gerstenlauer TDI-DWC-SIF from the
described Ultra Vires Acts of Conduct.

4
4.) The purpose of the prospective injunctive relief sought was/is to never
allege that Plaintiff-Appellant had been deprived of any benefits yet! - this
has been greatly misinterpreted into the courts decision. The main purpose
was/is to have the Appellees comply with the Texas State Statutes and not
subjugate and convert the Texas State Statutes because that
subjugation/conversion (ULTRA VIRES ACT) can/will result in the
unlawful interruption/deprivation of a Lifetime Income Benefit that the
Texas State Statutes clearly promulgated against doing.

The memorandum opinion - “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). We respectfully requested!

The memorandum opinion - “But he never alleges that he has been deprived
of any benefits” is a wholly unfortunate misinterpretation of the legal point.
That by the ultra vires acts of subjugation/converting the Texas State
Statutes (§§ 408.161 and 408.201) of the Labor Code it directly results in a
Catastrophically Injured individual NOT being paid until death. Thus
subjugating and converting the Texas State Statutes will undoubtedly cause
a future interruption/hardship/deprivation of the Lifetime Income Benefit.

Thus was clearly explicated and legal points made in Plaintiff-Appellant
amended original petition, written response in the trial court, initial brief and
the reply brief that are before the Texas State Courts.

5
5. ) The memorandum opinion - “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.

Thus a most unfortunate complete and total misjudgment, as the prior
proven imperative demonstrable error, misinterpretations, misjudgments
and legal points have been proven above in this motion for rehearing, and as
the clerks record has clearly indicated the True Proper Explication.

At NO point whatsoever was it the Plaintiff-Appellants intent to bring forth
before the Texas Courts Judicial Review any process that - “phone calls
violate §§ 408.161 and 408.201 of the Labor Code” (Emphasis added.)

To be extremely clear the court was/is correct that Plaintiff-Appellant took
umbrage when TDI began making monthly phone calls to verify that he was
still living. This was/is in the very-very beginning communications,
documents, and emails between the Plaintiff-Appellant and the Appellees
before litigation and then entered into the record as a preliminary reference.

The complete and total dynamic changed when Plaintiff-Appellant received
the TDI-DWC-SIF letter dated 4-3-2024 that threatened to interrupt the
Lifetime Income Benefit through Ultra Vires Conduct.
TO BE VERY CLEAR - This Ultra Vires Act within the 4-3-2024 letter
(very same content of the letter would later become “the new rule 131.5”)
was/is and has/always will consistently remain the main legal point and
reason for this Judicial Review before the Texas Court System.

The 4-3-2024 letter and its latter corresponding “New Rule 131.5”with their
Ultra Vires Act to not pay the Lifetime Income Benefit until death -
violated §§ 408.161 and 408.201 of the Labor Code not the “phone calls”.

6
6. ) The memorandum opinion - “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 eligibility, TDI committed an
ultra vires act.

Thus another most wholly unfortunate complete misjudgment, as the prior
imperative demonstrable error, misinterpretations, misjudgments and legal
points have been proven above and in #5 of this rehearing motion and as the
clerks record has clearly indicated the True Proper Explication.

The 4-3-2024 letter and its latter corresponding “Rule 131.5”with their Ultra
Vires Act to not pay the Lifetime Income Benefit until death -
violate §§ 408.161 and 408.201 of the Labor Code not the “phone calls”.

The clerks record on page 90-94 has clearly indicated
the True Proper Explication within the Trial Court.
In particular the clerks record page 91 quote:

“”AGAIN -- It must be stressed that An official fails to perform ministerial
act when he fails to comply with law that "prescribes and defines the
duties to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave
nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment."

The defendant has very clearly indicated in his letter dated 4-3-2024 to act
without legal authority and to not comply with the law by performing other
actions or claims of interrupt/stoppage/suspension on a, over two decades
and counting, Lifetime Income Benefit.

I would respectfully request that this act, by defendant, be deemed/labeled
SEVERE ULTRA VIRES ACT! (This Severe Ultra Vires Act, by
defendant, would leave the plaintiff Catastrophic Injured Worker with NO
Income to Sustain Life THUS VERY SEVERE!)””

7
7. ) The memorandum opinion footnote - 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.

Thus the most unfortunate complete and total misjudgment, as the prior
imperative demonstrable error, misinterpretations, misjudgments and legal
points have been proven above in this motion for rehearing, and as the clerks
record has clearly indicated the True Proper Explication.

It has been clearly proven that the new rule 131.5 was/is the latter
corresponding of the letter dated 4-3-2024. The letters content put into a
formal adopted form if you will - one and the same. Thus before the Court.

It is also indisputable that the Appellees used the new rule 131.5 as a
defense against the Appellant in their brief that is before this court.

Thus, this being Appellants first time knowing of the new rule 131.5
existence by it being included into the Appellees Brief - Appellant had to
respond/reply in any/all aspects of justice, fairness, and reasonableness.

To render Appellants Reply Brief irrelevant/moot would be a very
unfortunate injustice and unjustly disable Appellants Reply Brief.

8
In closing:

The Texas State Courts have a Ultra Vires Act before them that must be
lawfully settled that is indeed within its jurisdiction as well as a - “Great
Weight as to the well "Established Equitable” and "Merits." for over two
decades that proves to be Grandfathered-in apart from the Ultra Vires Plea.

Plaintiff-Appellant was “Threatened” and we, as a crucial legal point with
the utmost respect/reverence, demand that the Texas State Courts inherently
must claim Jurisdiction in All Proper Jurisprudence when a Catastrophically
Injured individuals only source of income is threatened by the ultra vires
acts of others who do not comply with the Texas State Statutes and seek to
subjugate and convert the Texas State Statutes through their ultra vires acts
whether its by way of a departments “internal management” and its latter
corresponding “adopted rule” or some other department form. It sets a very
dangerous precedent when an arbitrarily adopted New Rule is allowed to
actually override the Texas State Statutes enacted/stated intent.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Randal Law
Randal Law. Plaintiff
701 E. 11th St.
Del Rio, Texas 78840
(830)-768-1556
Rlaw9@stx.rr.com

9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this brief/motion complies with Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), and the word count of this document is
2,180 words including all portions that are not exempted by the rule. The
word processing software used to prepare this filing and calculate the word
count of the document is WPS Office.

/s/ Randal Law
Randal Law. Plaintiff

10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was
forwarded to all counsel of record shown below by e-service and/or e-mail in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on October 8, 2025.

CANON HILL
State Bar No. 24140247
Assistant Attorney General
Administrative Law Division
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol
Station Austin, Texas 78711-
2548
Telephone: (512) 936-
1838
Canon.Hill@oag.texas.
gov

/s/ Randal Law
Randal Law. Plaintiff

11
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope ID: 106606670
Filing Code Description: Motion for Rehearing - Exempt
Filing Description: MOTION FOR REHEARING
Status as of 10/8/2025 2:30 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Paul Pruneda paul.pruneda@oag.texas.gov 10/8/2025 2:24:03 PM SENT

Randal Law rlaw9@stx.rr.com 10/8/2025 2:24:03 PM SENT

Canon ParkerHill canon.hill@oag.texas.gov 10/8/2025 2:24:03 PM SENT

Canon Hill Canon.Hill@oag.texas.gov 10/8/2025 2:24:03 PM SENT