Lubbock County v. Reyna – 670 S.W.3d 769 – May 19, 2023
Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo. LUBBOCK COUNTY, Appellant v. Oscar REYNA, Appellee No. 07-22-00154-CV | May 19, 2023 Attorneys & Firms Michael J. Donovan, Austin, for Appellant. John E. Gibson, for Appellee. Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. OPINION Judy C. Parker, Justice Lubbock County appeals the entry of an April 22, 2022 […]
Harris County v. Dogan – 01-22-00079-CV – May 09, 2023
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the lower court’s order that the Plaintiff-Employee (first responder) suffered a compensable heart attack.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Tidwell – 677 S.W.3d 98 – Apr 28, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the lower court’s denial of the Defendant-Employer’s plea to the jurisdiction in a claim for workers’ compensation retaliation. The Court found that Plaintiff-Employee failed to raise a question of fact on whether Defendant-Employer’s stated reason for termination based on its absence-control policy was pretextual in nature.
Brackenridge Healthcare, Inc. v. Camero – 04-22-00271-CV – Apr 27, 2023
The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) reversed the lower court’s order and rendered judgment compelling the parties to arbitration.
Engel v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation – 03-23-00077-CV – Apr 21, 2023
The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) dismissed the case for want of prosecution because Plaintiff-Employee failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record.
Cook v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company – 677 S.W.3d 52 – Apr 12, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the lowers court’s order granting Defendant-Insurance-Carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgement which found the Plaintiff-Employee was not in the course and scope of employment while driving from his home to the Employer’s work site. The Court found that the Plaintiff-Employee raised a genuine issue of fact as to the course-and-scope requirement for a compensable injury as to both the origination of his trip and that his trip furthered the Employer’s business. The Court also found that the Plaintiff-Employee showed an exception to the coming-and-going exclusion.
Fortenberry v. Great Divide Insurance Company – 664 S.W.3d 807 – Mar 31, 2023
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order regarding venue where the Plaintiff-Employee was a football player that claimed to reside at a hotel in Dallas. The Court noted that the record adequately demonstrated that the Plaintiff-Employee “resided” in Dallas County at the time of his injury as Section 410.252(b) requires.
Olivares v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP – 05-22-00057-CV – Mar 14, 2023
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.
Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Jackson – 02-22-00203-CV – Mar 02, 2023
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.
Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation v. Accident Fund Insurance Company – 03-21-00074-CV – Feb 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.