A Texas appellate court is considering a case that could affect how the state manages lifetime workers’ compensation benefits, following a challenge by a long-time recipient who says the state’s new verification rule goes beyond what the law allows.
Randal Law, a catastrophically injured worker who has been receiving Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs) for more than twenty years, filed an appeal with the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin on April 18. He is seeking to overturn a decision by the 353rd Civil District Court in Travis County, which dismissed his lawsuit against the Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers’ Compensation (TDI-DWC) and its Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF).
At issue is a new agency rule—28 Texas Administrative Code §131.5—adopted in early 2025. It requires injured employees receiving LIBs to confirm each month that they are still alive before the agency disburses their payments. Verification can be done through a phone call, video call, or other online method. If the recipient does not provide the required confirmation, the SIF holds the payment until verification is complete.
Law argues that the rule conflicts with the Texas Labor Code, particularly Section 408.161, which states that “lifetime income benefits are paid until the death of the employee.” He also cites Section 408.201, which exempts benefits from “garnishment, attachment, judgment, and other actions or claims.” According to Law, the monthly verification requirement amounts to an unauthorized condition that delays or disrupts a legislatively guaranteed benefit.
In his filing, Law—who is representing himself—says the agency and its officials acted “Severe Ultra Vires,” meaning beyond their legal authority. He contends that the rule substitutes agency discretion for clear legislative directives and unlawfully transforms an unconditional benefit into one that can be suspended at the agency’s discretion.
Law states that the enforcement of the rule has caused him direct harm, including late payments, overdraft fees, and bankruptcy. He also objects to the tone and method of the calls, which he describes as demeaning and inappropriate for catastrophically injured workers with long-established claims.
The agency, through its counsel from the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, argues that the rule is a lawful administrative measure designed to ensure that benefits are not paid to deceased individuals. It says the verification process is consistent with its statutory duties and does not conflict with the Labor Code.
Law, however, maintains that the verification burden is unnecessary and excessive, especially given the agency’s admitted use of CLEAR, a third-party research tool used to confirm identity and life status. He says the rule imposes unreasonable requirements on vulnerable individuals and undermines the purpose of LIBs.
The district court dismissed Law’s case after granting the agency’s plea to the jurisdiction, finding that the officials acted within their legal capacity and were protected by sovereign immunity. Law’s appeal asks the appellate court to apply the ultra vires exception, which permits legal action against state officials who act without authority or fail to perform ministerial duties required by law.
As of the filing date, the appellate court has not issued a ruling. The outcome could have implications not only for Texas but for other states managing long-term workers’ compensation benefits. It raises broader questions about how administrative rules interact with statutory guarantees, and how far agencies can go in designing oversight mechanisms without express legislative authorization.
For insurance professionals, particularly those focused on workers’ compensation and regulatory compliance, the case serves as a close-up look at the limits of administrative power—and a reminder that the implementation of even well-intentioned rules must align with the law as written.
