Opinion
No. 05-03-01479-CV
Opinion Filed October 25, 2004.
On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 03-02626-C.
Affirmed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal stems from a worker's compensation claim filed by appellant, Lamaindra Session, who sustained a compensable injury on November 6, 2000 while working for her employer, Realty Management Corporation. Session sued Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company, Realty Management Corporation, Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC), Hoffman Kelley LLP and M. Shane Thompson complaining that the commission appeals panel erred in upholding the decision of the commission's hearing officer regarding Session's impairment rating and whether she had reached maximum medical improvement. The record reveals that defendants Hoffman Kelley, LLP and M. Shane Thompson filed a plea to the jurisdiction and special exceptions, that defendant TWCC filed a plea to the jurisdiction and the affirmative defense of judicial immunity and official and sovereign immunity, and that defendants Argonaut and Realty Management also filed a plea to the jurisdiction and special exceptions. The trial court granted the "Plea to the Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss and Special Exceptions" as to all defendants. We affirm the trial court's order.
Session contends that she has been denied due process in the proceedings before the TWCC. She asserts that due process would have been satisfied if defendant TWCC had required her designated doctor to apply the "Rules for Evaluation as indicated in the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment" to her condition. Her brief consists of a discussion of whether the designated doctor and the hearings officer followed the rules and the appeal panel decisions of the TWCC. As a part of this discussion, she refers to medical reports attached to her brief that are not a part of the record before this Court. Specifically, "Tab B" and "Tab D," as designated by Session, are not part of the clerk's record in this appeal nor do these reports bear any file mark of the trial court. The matters contained in these reports were not before the trial court, and are not properly before us for our review. See Perry v. Kroger Stores, Store No. 119, 741 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, no writ). Accordingly, we overrule Session's issue regarding the processes followed by the designated doctor and the hearings officer.
Session's brief does not address the trial court's jurisdiction over her suit against the five defendants or the trial court's order granting the defendants' plea to the jurisdiction, motion to dismiss, and special exceptions. The only discussion of the issue is raised by appellees in their briefs. No party raises it as a point of error. Absent appellant's argument or authority regarding the issue of jurisdiction, we may not reverse the trial court's order. The supreme court has "held repeatedly that the courts of appeal may not reverse the judgment of a trial court for a reason not raised in a point of error." Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56,58 (Tex. 1993); Britton v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676,680-81 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (appellant must attack all independent grounds supporting plea to the jurisdiction). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.