Court Cases - Texas Worker

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the Employee-Plaintiff's case for failure to plead any claim upon which relief could be granted. Regarding the Employee-Plaintiff's on-the-job injury claim, the Court noted that recovery of workers' compensation benefits was the exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) reversed and remand the lower court's order of dismissal pursuant to Defendant-Employer's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court noted that the dismissal was based on an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional issue, and thus a plea to the jurisdiction was the wrong procedural vehicle to pursue.

The Second Court of Appeals (Ft. worth) reversed the trial court’s orders that denied the Defendant-Employer’s plea to the jurisdiction and alternative no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a workers’ compensation retaliation claim. The Court noted that the Defendant-Employer provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff-Employee’s termination.

February 28, 2023

The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s order finding that Section (d)(1)(D) of 28 Texas Administrative Code Section 130.102 was invalid and that Section (f)’s mention of “work search contacts” is inapplicable to individuals who complete work searches on their own without the involvement of the Texas Workforce Commission. The Court reversed the lower court’s order that Rule 130.102(d)(1)(D) was facially invalid. The Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling regarding section (f) stating that Section (f) does not apply to include all work-search contacts within the definition of “job application,” or to allow work-search efforts that are not documented by written or oral job applications to count towards the satisfactory evidence of an active work-search effort for job seekers searching on their own.

February 26, 2023

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Defendant-General-Contractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court noted that to create a duty of care, there must be a nexus between the general contractor’s retained control and the condition or activity that causes the injury.

February 22, 2023

The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Employee on her claim for premises liability. The Court noted that the Plaintiff-Employee was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of the injury because she had not clocked in or started working. The Court further noted that the insurance-carrier denied the claim.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 1,516 Next »

Top