No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court affirmed dismissal of claims related to non-TWCC-ordered medical treatment but reversed and remanded claims regarding delay in paying for TWCC-ordered psychotherapy treatment, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction over some claims but erred in dismissing others.
Malish v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company
Deborah Malish sued her workers' compensation insurance companies after being injured at work. She claimed the insurers broke their contract by refusing to pay for medical treatment, acted in bad faith, and failed to accommodate her needs. The case involved disputes over two types of medical care: treatments that weren't specifically ordered by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) and psychotherapy that was TWCC-ordered but allegedly delayed.
The appeals court reached a split decision. It upheld the dismissal of Malish's claims about medical treatments that weren't specifically ordered by the TWCC, ruling the trial court didn't have jurisdiction over those issues. However, the court reversed the dismissal of her claims about delays in paying for TWCC-ordered psychotherapy treatment, sending those claims back to the lower court for further proceedings.
This ruling matters for injured workers because it clarifies that while workers' compensation courts handle most treatment disputes, regular courts may still hear certain claims about insurance company delays in paying for approved treatments. Workers should understand that the type of medical treatment and whether it was officially ordered can affect where and how they can pursue legal action against insurance companies.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Deborah Malish v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Ace American Insurance Company from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.