Rodriguez v. Frez-N-Stor, Inc. – H-23-cv-3944 – Jul 22, 2025
The US District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Americold, finding it was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity under Texas Labor Code § 408.001 because it was covered as an “alternate employer” on Luxor Staffing’s policy. However, the court denied summary judgment for Frez-N-Stor, holding that there were genuine factual disputes about whether its improper loading of cargo caused the accident that left Rodriguez paralyzed.
Alvarado v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation – 2:25-CV-00029 – Jul 3, 2025
The U.S. Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all of Alvarado’s claims against Citgo Petroleum Corporation, including those under the ADA, Texas Labor Code, and Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, because he was no longer an employee but an independent contractor. It also dismissed his Rehabilitation Act claim as both abandoned and insufficiently pleaded and denied his request to amend the complaint because any amendment would be futile. The court found that Citgo’s non-renewal of his consulting contract and refusal to submit Social Security paperwork did not support a plausible inference of discrimination.
Bertel v. Elite Flowers – 3:24-CV-2381-S – Jun 3, 2025
The U.S. District Court, N.D. Texas denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, holding that their wrongful death and gross negligence claims did not arise under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) and were therefore removable to federal court. Although the employer was a subscriber to workers’ compensation insurance, the court found that the TWCA’s gross negligence exception in Section 408.001(b) merely preserved a preexisting cause of action under the Texas Wrongful Death Act—it did not create a new claim arising under the TWCA. Consequently, the federal removal bar in 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) did not apply.
Rios-Hernandez v. Scanning Devices, Inc. – 5:23-CV-0005-JRG-JBB – May 15, 2025
A magistrate judge with the U.S. Eastern District Court of Texas recommended that the district court approve a revised settlement of this products-liability action, which stems from a 2021 workplace injury and includes a significant workers’ compensation lien. The agreement doubles each minor child’s recovery to $50,000, shields their shares from attorney fees, expenses, and the comp lien, and places the funds in structured annuities payable at ages 18, 21, and 25. It also resolves the workers’ compensation carrier’s multi-million-dollar subrogation claim at a reduced amount while preserving the claimant’s ongoing compensation benefits.
Gonzalez-Perez v. Universal Chain of Texas, LLC – 3:24-CV-2121-D – May 7, 2025
Granting summary judgment, the Northern District of Texas dismissed Gerardo Gonzalez-Perez’s ADA and TCHRA discrimination, accommodation, and retaliation claims against Universal Chain of Texas, finding that he failed to raise a fact issue and that the company’s sole reason for discharge—his inability to verify a valid Social Security number—was lawful. The court noted that Gonzalez had already been given light-duty work after his forklift injury and that no evidence showed disability bias. While the opinion does not resolve a workers-compensation dispute, it arose from a compensable workplace injury and confirms that receiving Texas workers-comp benefits and modified duty does not insulate an employee from termination unrelated to the claim. Gonzalez’s medical benefits remain payable under workers’ compensation, but his employment-law claims tied to the injury are now permanently barred.
In re Basic Energy Services, Inc. – 4:23-cv-02910 – Apr 30, 2025
The United States District Court S.D. (Houston) granted summary judgment in favor of the Liquidation Trustee for Basic Energy Services, dismissing all tort claims brought by Pedro and Angelina De La Rosa related to a workplace vehicle rollover. The court ruled that Pedro’s claims were barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision because he failed to plead or prove an intentional tort and instead alleged only gross negligence. Angelina De La Rosa’s derivative claims were also barred under the same provision. However, the court declined to dismiss claims related to post-accident conduct, including alleged interference with Pedro’s medical treatment, allowing those to proceed.
Wagnon v. Kroger Texas, LP – 762 F.Supp.3d 509 – Jan 8, 2025
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas remanded the non-subscriber case back to state court. The Court noted a split on whether these cases “arise under workers’ compensation laws of the state.” The Court further noted that “any ambiguities are construed against removal.”
Santiago v. Amazon.com Service LLC – 6:23-CV-00134 – Oct 15, 2024
The Magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas recommended that the Defendant-Employer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction be denied. The Court noted that the Motion to Dismiss relied on the presence of a defendant who was no longer a party to the suit.
Canine v. Sam’s East, Inc. – 2:24-CV-00158 – Oct 4, 2024
The U.S. District Court for the S.D. of Texas granted Employer-Defendant’s Motion to Amend Notice of Removal and denied Employee-Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand. The Court found that that personal injury claims brought against nonsubscriber employers pursuant to the parameters of § 406.033 are modified by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act but are not cases that arise under the Act.
Bowens v. Sweeping Corporation of America, LLC – 3:24-cv-178-BN – Jul 2, 2024
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas remanded the matter back to the state district court, from which it was removed. The Court noted that the Defendant-Employer had not met its heavy burden to demonstrate that there was no reasonable basis to predict that Plaintiff-Beneficiary might be able to recover under Texas law.