Donaldson v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc. – 02-23-00271-CV – May 2, 2024
The 2nd Court of Appeals (Ft. Worth) reversed the lower court’s summary judgment in a non-subscriber, premises liability case. The Court found that the Plaintiff-Beneficiaries produced more than a scintilla of evidence that the Defendant-Employer created the dangerous condition.
Perl v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation – 03-24-00233-CV – May 2, 2024
The 3rd Court of Appeals (Austin) granted Appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss.
In re All Repair and Restoration – 14-23-00605-CV – Apr 25, 2024
The 14th Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi) found that the trial court abused its discretion and granted Plaintiff-Employee’s motion to abate. The Court noted that abatement is required where there are parallel compensability proceedings and negligence suits.
In re First Transit Inc. – 01-23-00619-CV – Apr 23, 2024
The 1st Court of Appeals (Houston) found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant-Employer’s motion to compel an examination by an expert witness. The Court noted that the Defendant-Employer provided sufficient proof to establish it would be unable to obtain the same information by a review of the medical records or by deposing the physicians.
JNM Express, LLC v. Lozano – 688 S.W.3d 327 – Apr 19, 2024
The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider the merits of whether the trial court correctly used the federal regulations’ definitions of “employer” and “employee” in the jury charge, including whether the federal regulations’ definitions preempt the state-law analysis for determining employment status for purposes of the workers’-compensation system and state tort law.
Matter of Jaimes – 05-22-00818-CV – Mar 27, 2024
The 5th Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Plaintiff-Beneficiary. Specifically, in regard to the timeliness of the claim for death benefits, the Court noted that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the Plaintiff-Beneficiary’s mistaken belief—that everything that needed to be filed for her death-benefits claim had been filed—was reasonable based on the deceased’s representations and a note from a City employee.
City of Stephenville v. Belew – 692 S.W.3d 347 – Mar 7, 2024
The 11th Court of Appeals (Eastland) reversed the trial court’s judgment finding the Claimant-Employee’s pancreatic cancer was compensable. The Court concluded that Texas Gov’t Code § 607.055 imposes an initial burden on a worker’s compensation claimant to establish a general causal link between the cancerous condition that they developed during their employment and the specific exposures identified in the statute, pursuant to the criteria promulgated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Orta v. SN Operating LLC – 690 S.W.3d 730 – Mar 6, 2024
The 4th Court of Appeals (San Antonio) affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for Defendant-Non-Subscriber. The Court agreed with the lower court that the Plaintiff-Employee failed to present evidence of causation for heat stroke, which requires medical expert testimony.
ExxonMobil Corporation v. Alvarez – 693 S.W.3d 794 – Feb 29, 2024
The 14th Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the lower court’s denials of Employer-Defendant’s motions for summary judgment. The Court concludes that Employer-Defendant conclusively established both elements of its exclusive-remedy defense as to each of the Plaintiffs, and that the Plaintiffs failed to raise a fact issue or otherwise show that summary-judgment was improper.
Long v. R.E. Watson & Associates Inc. – 02-23-00144-CV – Feb 29, 2024
The 2nd Court of Appeals (Ft. Worth) affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment because the evidence established that Plaintiff-Employee’s foreman was not a corporate vice principal, and because Plaintiff-Employee presented no competent evidence raising a fact issue.