# Accident Fund Ins. Co. of Am. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 23-0273 **Accident Fund Ins. Co. of Am. v. Tex. Dep't of Ins., No. 23-0273, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of a facial challenge to the Division of Workers' Compensation's rule on job applications for supplemental income benefits, writing that a facial challenge was the wrong vehicle for deciding whether the rule impermissibly drops the statute's requirement that applications be "submitted by the recipient."** Practice areas: administrative law, insurance ## Key issues - Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of a facial challenge to the Division of Workers' Compensation's rule on job applications for supplemental income benefits, writing that a facial challenge was the wrong vehicle for deciding whether the rule impermissibly drops the statute's requirement that applications be "submitted by the recipient." - He said the question would likely merit review in a challenge to a specific award, or if the rule were shown to require unlawful awards, and that in such a case the Court could and should assess critically an agency's power to rewrite statutory criteria now that the U.S. Supreme Court has abandoned Chevron deference. ## Factual History Texas workers' compensation pays supplemental income benefits to workers with an impairment rating of 15% or more, but the Labor Code requires "active work search efforts documented by job applications submitted by the recipient" (Tex. Lab. Code § 408.1415(a)(3)). The Division's rule, 28 Tex. Admin. Code § 130.102(d)(1)(D), requires evidence only of "job applications," without the words "submitted by the recipient" (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 3). ## Procedural History The Third Court of Appeals rejected Accident Fund and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust's facial challenge to the rule (2023 WL 2286662, Feb. 28, 2023). The petitions were filed May 15, 2023, the Division responded October 6, 2023, and merits briefs were filed in 2024; the Court denied review February 7, 2025, together with No. 23-0950. ## Issues Presented Whether Rule 130.102(d)(1)(D) is invalid because it omits the statute's requirement that job applications be submitted by the recipient and reads "job application" too broadly, and whether the Division adopted an ad hoc rule through an appeals panel decision or its application form (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 3-4; Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF p. 23). ## Legal Arguments **Accident Fund and the Trust (Petitioners):** by dropping "submitted by the recipient" the rule lowers the bar the Legislature set, so nearly any inquiry, even a call asking whether a business is hiring, could qualify as a job application (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 4). **The Division (Respondent):** it reasonably credits in-person and phone requests for work, "submitted by the recipient" can include the worker's agents, and its reading furthers the Act's goal of returning impaired workers to work (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 23-24). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Not applicable—the petition was denied. ## Practice Area Tags administrative-law, insurance ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Third Court of Appeals, denied with a concurring opinion (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-2). ## Amicus Involvement None noted ## Court's Reasoning Justice Young explained that a facial challenge requires showing the rule is inherently incompatible with the statute, and the parties offered no example of a case that would come out one way under the statute and another under the rule, so review would be of little benefit and might do harm. He would likely vote to grant a petition that challenges a specific award or shows the rule clearly mandates unlawful awards, and observed that agencies in Texas have never enjoyed Chevron-style deference, which the U.S. Supreme Court has now abandoned (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 4-6, 10). ## Disposition Petition for review denied. ## Vote Breakdown Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of both petitions (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 2). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/23-0273. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.