dispute of Bestor’s entitlement to worker’s compensation benefits.” Id. at 553. It did not matter if the claim implicated contract or tort principles causes of action; whether the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over it depended upon whether the claim was “based on” an alleged delay or denial of worker’s compensation benefits. Id.; accord, Cigna Ins. Co. v. Killion, 50 S.W.3d 17, 20 (Tex.App.Amarillo 2001, pet. denied) (wherein we held that a claim is within the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction unless it arises under a body of law other than the Worker’s Compensation Act and involves damages which exclude compensation and benefits encompassed by the Act); see Cunningham Lindsey Claims Mgmt., Inc. v. Snyder, 291 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. filed) (<HOLDING>). Much like the attorney’s fees incurred in
holding the trial court erred as a matter of law in adjudicating a claim for relief that was not demanded by the parties holding that unless a claim for relief is not dependent either directly or indirectly upon the resolution of a matter within the commissions exclusive jurisdiction a trial court may not proceed and entertain it holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction holding that it may not holding that because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the united states court of international trade the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over a matter that was protested or protestable