v. Fidelity & Guaranty Ins., 925 S.W.2d at 612. Moreover, the TWCC had yet to determine if he was so entitled. Until it did, neither the trial court nor the jury could usurp the agency’s authority by addressing it, and that is what effectively occurred here. The jury and trial court, through their respective verdict and judgment, held that the Act entitled Killion to back surgery before the TWCC considered the matter. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred when it failed to heed the dictate of Saenz and like authority obligating Killion to first present the matter of his entitlement to back surgery to the TWCC and secure a final decision resolving the issue from that agency. See Pacific Indem. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 91, 93 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Castillo v. Allied Ins. Co., 537 S.W.2d 486,
holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act holding that the provisions of the workers compensation act must be satisfied or the action is not maintainable in the courts holding that under the doctrine the district court should have stayed the diversityjurisdiction case pending the state workers compensation commissions final decision on whether the defendant properly paid certain workers compensation claims holding that plaintiff was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies before the puerto rico labor relations board before invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine whether the boards assertion of jurisdiction was proper holding that the failure to obtain an administrative ruling under the workers compensation statute prevents the paty from invoking the district courts jurisdiction