dissenting.
I respectfully but strongly dissent from the majority and concurring opinions which reflect nothing less than judicial legislation to further weaken the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
It is a longstanding rule that a state cannot be sued without its consent, and then only in the manner, place and courts designated. State v. Isbell, 127 Tex. 399, 94 S.W.2d 423, 424 (Tex.Comm’n App.1936); Paris Milling Company v. Bullock, 583 S.W.2d 487, 489 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1979, no writ). Thus, it is clear that the State is immune from suit unless the legislature has consented to the specific suit or the particular kind of suits. Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex.1980); Director of the Department of Agriculture and Environment v. Printing Industries Association of Texas, 600 S.W.2d 264, 265 (Tex.1980); Lowe v. Texas Tech University, 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1976). See also State Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. Dopyera, 35 Tex.Sup. Ct.J. 1039, 1041, 834 S.W.2d 50 (July 1, 1992). It is also well-established that for the legislature to waive the State’s governmental or sovereign immunity, it must do so by clear and unambiguous statutory language. Duhart, 610 S.W.2d at 742; Kerrville HRH, Inc. v. City of Kerrville, 803 S.W.2d 377, 382 (Tex.App. — San Antonio *1781990, writ denied); City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 736 S.W.2d 894, 906 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1987, writ denied); Lynch v. Port of Houston Authority, 671 S.W.2d 954, 958 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref d n.r.e.). Being in derogation of sovereignty, a grant of consent to sue the State must be strictly construed. Paris Milling Company, 583 S.W.2d at 489.
A suit to set aside a workers’ compensation compromise settlement agreement (CSA) is not a suit under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Unlike a suit to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board, a suit to set aside or rescind a CSA for fraud or mistake is in both form and substance an independent cause of action. Other than the fact the subject matter of the contract sought to be set aside is a compensation settlement, the suit is unrelated to any provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. As stated in Luersen v. Transamerica Insurance Company, 550 S.W.2d 171, 173 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.):
The power of the courts to set aside a compromise settlement agreement for fraud or mistake stems not from the Workmen’s Compensation Law but instead from the Constitution and general statutes defining the court’s jurisdiction. Whenever a party to a compromise settlement agreement claims to have been induced to execute the agreement through fraud or mistake, the court is the only forum to which he may resort. See Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., supra; _
The majority cite Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 148 Tex. 289, 224 S.W.2d 466 (1949), seemingly in support of their stunning conclusion that by a liberal construction of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the legislature has authorized a suit against the State to set aside a compromise settlement agreement. Since a suit to set aside a CSA for fraud or mistake is independent and unrelated to the Workers’ Compensation Act, it is entirely inappropriate to rely on a “liberal construction” of that Act. Moreover, Brannon offers no support for the majority’s sweeping conclusion, the issue in that case being primarily concerned with jurisdictional amount. In addition to language almost identical to that quoted above from Luersen, Brannon also stated that “[i]n a suit to set aside a compromise settlement on the grounds of fraud, the rules of common law applicable to suits for rescission and cancellation are applicable.” 224 S.W.2d at 468. Because a suit to rescind a CSA is of common law origin, it cannot be said that it is derived from the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Since a suit to set aside a CSA is not a suit under the Workers’ Compensation Act, in order to be maintained it must be authorized under some other statute. Duhart, 610 S.W.2d at 742. The majority do not and cannot point to any statutory language which expressly, or even impliedly (which would be insufficient under Duhart), authorizes a suit against the State. The only statutory reference in the majority opinion is to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8309d (Vernon 1967). Sections 11,1 17, 20 and 21 of Article 8309d relate only to suits to set aside final rulings and decisions of the Industrial Accident Board, not at all to suits to set aside CSAs for whatever reason. The only other argument advanced by the majority in support of their novel holding is that it is somehow, inequitable or unfair to allow a suit to set aside a CSA for fraud against a private person or corporation but not against a governmental entity. This argument would be just as valid against all defensive claims of governmental immunity, so why not just come out and say that for that reason we are abolishing completely the doctrine of sovereign immunity regardless of what the legislature or the Supreme Court have said or not said on the matter.
Finally, the holding of the majority that the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity for compensation claims extends to causes *179of action to rescind CSAs is completely inconsistent with our very recent holding and opinion in Wallace v. City of Midland, 836 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.App — El Paso, 1992, motion for rehearing pending). In that case, a fireman had filed an independent damage suit (separate from a suit by both parties to set aside the IAB award) against his self-insured city employer, alleging breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in handling his compensation claim. We affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the city, holding that since it was required by statute [Tex.Rev. Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8309h § 2(a) (Vernon Pamph.1992)] to extend in one manner or another workmen’s compensation benefits to its employees, neither it nor the legislature intended to waive its tort immunity. By the same reasoning, there is no statutory language within or outside the Workers’ Compensation Act which would authorize a court to set aside a contract to which the State is a party on grounds of fraud or mistake.
Since I am in agreement with the remainder of the majority opinion, I would overrule both of the Appellant’s two points of error and affirm the summary judgment of the trial court.
. Section 11 was repealed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 1, § 16.01(19), eff. Jan. 1, 1991.