Court Cases - Texas Worker

Court Cases

Painter and Wright v. Amerimex Drilling I, LTD.

8th COA – El Paso

The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the summary judgement granted by the lower court which found the Plaintiff-Employees' negligence claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Act's. The Court determined the Defendant-Employer's summary judgment evidence did not conclusively establish that the Plaintiff-Employees were acting in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the motor vehicle collision.

Medrano v. Kerry Ingredients and Flavours, Inc.

2nd COA – Fort Worth

The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) found that where an employee’s claim is not “based on” entitlement to benefits, the claim is not subject to the Division’s exclusive jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Division’s exclusive jurisdiction does not extend to all cases that touch on workers’ compensation issues, and the district courts decide disputes about whether the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision applies as a defense to an injured worker’s personal injury suit. The Court reasoned that exclusive-remedy is an affirmative defense that is not disposed of with a motion to dismiss such as a plea to the jurisdiction, and exclusive-remedy should instead be raised through a motion for summary judgment or proven at trial.

De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, GP, LLC

11th COA – Eastland

The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) held that the Workers' Compensation Act’s evident purpose was to confine its operation to only accidental injuries. The Court found that the Act's exclusive-remedy provision does not prohibit an employee or the employee's spouse from pursuing intentional-injury claims against the employer. Further, the Court found that an injured employee’s acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not bar the injured employee's claim under the Election of Remedies Doctrine, nor does it bar an employee-spouse’s derivative claim against the employer for intentional impairment of consortium.

Martinez v. Boone

8th COA – El Paso

The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed summary judgment orders of the lower court by finding that fact issues existed regarding 1) the Subcontractor-Employer’s relationship with the Employee; and 2) whether the Employee was in the course and scope of employment. Specifically, the Court found that a fact issue existed where the Master Service Agreement between the Contractor and Subcontractor-Employer (upstream contract) “unequivocally provides that anyone engaged to perform work under the MSA shall be deemed [Subcontractor-Employer’s] employee ‘for all purposes[,]'" coupled with conflicting evidence of the Subcontractor-Employer’s right to control. Further, the Court found that a fact issue existed regarding the course and scope of employment where the Employee was securing food and water for other workers as well as refueling his vehicle for which the Subcontractor-Employer reimbursed the Employee.

Mariscal v. McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. and The Brandt Companies, LLC

13th COA – Corpus Christi

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi) affirmed a summary judgment against Plaintiff-Employee from the lower court. The Court found that the OCIP entered into between the general contractor and the subcontractor extended the employee/employer relationship throughout all tiers of the subcontractor's work under Texas Labor Code § 406.123. The Court further reasoned that the OCIP was valid because the general contractor ensured that if a lapse in the OCIP occurred, the subcontractor was not able to opt out of coverage.

Dicex International, Inc. v. Amigo Staffing, Inc.

Texas Supreme Court

The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) found that, where a claim was initiated prior to the effective date of Texas Labor Code 93.004(b), a staffing agreement must satisfy Texas Labor Code 417.004’s requirement of “a written agreement with the third party to assume the liability.” The Court determined that the staffing agreement between the parties failed to meet this requirement because it did not mention indemnity, much less contain an express indemnity clause. As such, the Court concluded that the agreement was insufficient to show Appellee-Staffing-Company expressly assumed liability to indemnify third parties for injuries to Appellant-Employer’s employees.

In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Co.

Texas Supreme Court

In an underinsured motorist claim, the Texas Supreme Court clarified that a plaintiff seeking recovery of benefits owed under an insurance policy must first establish his entitlement to policy benefits as a contractual matter before he can recover them as damages for an Insurance Code claim. The Court cited a series of cases, including a workers’ compensation case, to illustrate that the two-pronged framework is not limited to homeowners’ insurance claims.

Vega v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Northern Dist. Ct. - Texas

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Defendant-Employer’s summary judgment in a non-subscriber case where the Plaintiff-Employee signed a post-injury waiver as part of Defendant-Employer’s Workplace Injury Settlement Program. The Court noted that Plaintiff-Employee failed to argue that the Waiver was invalid under the Texas Labor Code. Instead, the Plaintiff-Employee asserted that the Waiver did not preclude the claims asserted in the case because it: (1) was procured by fraud; and (2) was not supported by valid consideration. Specifically, Plaintiff-Employee argued 1) that she had been fraudulently induced to sign the Waiver; and 2) that there was no consideration because she had personal insurance that would have covered the injuries. The Court found that Plaintiff-Employee failed to offer evidence sufficient to sustain either argument.

In the Interest of A.V.T.R, a Child

14th COA – Houston

Workers' compensation is only mentioned in the Court's reference to Hazelwood, 596 S.W.2d at 205, where the workers' compensation claimant alleged that an employment contract was void as against public policy.

Floyd v. Gateway Mortgage Group

2nd COA – Fort Worth

Workers' compensation is only mentioned in the Court's reference to jurisdiction as prescribed by Texas Government Code § 25.0003(c), which grants jurisdiction to statutory county courts to hear “appeals of final rulings and decisions of the division of workers' compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance regarding workers' compensation claims, regardless of the amount in controversy.”

1 2 3 … 898 Next »

Top