Barker v. Sam Houston University – 06-22-00076-CV – Jun 22, 2023
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) affirmed the lower court’s finding that the Employee-Plaintiff was in the course and scope of employment at the time of her injury. The Court found that the portion of the public street where the Plaintiff-Employee was injured was on Defendant-Employer’s premises, and even if Defendant-Employer did not own the roadway, it was in such proximity and relation as to be in practical effect a part of Defendant-Employer’s premises.
Mouton v. Houston Independent School District – 01-22-00205-CV – Jun 20, 2023
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing Employee-Plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Court reasoned that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive procedures and remedies for claims alleging that a workers’ compensation carrier has improperly investigated, handled, or settled a workers’ claim for benefits.
In re Rudolph Automotive, LLC – 674 S.W.3d 289 – Jun 16, 2023
The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the district court to vacate its new-trial order, harmonize the verdict, and proceed in the normal course with the post-trial stages of litigation.
Renaissance Medical Foundation v. Lugo – 672 S.W.3d 901 – Jun 15, 2023
The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals addressed whether a nonprofit health organization (NPHO) can be held vicariously liable for a physician’s medical negligence despite statutory limits on controlling medical judgment. Both the Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that such liability is possible if the employer has contractual or actual control that does not interfere with the physician’s independent medical judgment. Although the case involves medical malpractice, its relevance to Texas workers’ compensation lies in the modified analysis of employer control—a key element in determining employment relationships and liability under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. This decision signals that statutory limits on control in certain regulated professions may affect whether an organization is considered an employer for workers’ compensation purposes.
Engel v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers’ Compensation – 03-23-00077-CV – Jun 13, 2023
The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) granted the Plaintiff-Employee’s Motion for Rehearing because of extenuating personal circumstances that caused him to be unable to make arrangements for the clerk’s record before the Court’s prior dismissal.
Ursin v. Brand Energy Solutions, Inc. – 01-22-00651-CV – Jun 13, 2023
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) upheld the lower court’s summary judgment for the Employer-Defendant. The Court found that the Beneficiary-Plaintiff’s argument did not challenge the grounds, arguments, and evidence.
Whitehurst v. New Hampshire Insurance Company – 14-21-00153-CV – Jun 6, 2023
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the trial court’s final judgment against the Plaintiff-Employee.
Handy v. Zurich American Insurance Company – 03-21-00418-CV – Jun 2, 2023
The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiff-Employee’s claims. The Court noted that the Plaintiff-Employee failed to specify to the trial court which findings of the Division were being contested.
City of Houston v. Carter – 01-22-00453-CV – May 25, 2023
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the trial court’s order denying the plea to the jurisdiction on Plaintiff-Employee’s claims, including worker’s compensation retaliation. The court found that the Plaintiff-Employee failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Francois – 05-21-00981-CV – May 23, 2023
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) reversed the trial court’s order regarding the allocation of the third-party settlement amount and award of additional attorney’s fees. The Court found that the insurance carrier was entitled to “the first money a worker receives from a tortfeasor,” and “the employee has no right to any sums recovered from a third party until the carrier is reimbursed in full.”