Tovar v. Wright-Way Maintenance, LLC – 12-22-00078-CV – Feb 15, 2023
The Twelfth Court of Appeals (Tyler) affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of Defendant-Employer regarding a workers’ compensation retaliation claim. The Court noted that the Defendant-Employer produced summary judgment evidence that it fired Plaintiff-Employee based on his unsatisfactory performance, thus it met its burden of showing a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for his termination.
Croysdill v. Old Republic Insurance Company – 668 S.W.3d 782 – Feb 09, 2023
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction in favor of Defendant-Employer. The Court noted that the Defendant-Carrier was within its statutory right to dispute extent of injury even though there had been a previous determination regarding maximum medical improvement and impairment rating.
Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC v. Peavley – 09-21-00403-CV – Feb 09, 2023
The Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) reversed the lower court’s denial of Defendant-Employer’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff-Employee’s electronic agreement to arbitrate at the end of a computer-based training module was binding.
El Paso Independent School District v. Portillo – 08-21-00021-CV – Jan 30, 2023
The 8th Court of Appeals (El Paso) affirmed the lowers court’s judgment by finding that the trial court provided the jury with a legally correct and sufficiently inclusive definition of “incurable imbecility.” The definition used by the lower court was, “A more or less advanced decay and feebleness of the intellectual faculties; that weakness of mind which, without depriving the person entirely of the use of his reason, leaves only the faculty of conceiving the most common and ordinary ideas and such as relate almost always to physical wants and habits.”
The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley v. Oteka – 13-22-00063-CV – Jan 26, 2023
The 13th Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi) affirmed the lower court’s denial of the Employer-Defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction because the Employee-Plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit was not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The Court found that the Division’s exclusive jurisdiction does not extend to all cases that touch on workers’ compensation issues, and the Employee-Plaintiff’s personal injury claim was not based on their entitlement to benefits.
Cameron International Corporation v. Martinez – 21-0614 – Dec 30, 2022
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for the Defendant in an action by third parties. The Court held that the court of appeals incorrectly relied upon the “special mission” exception in declining to apply the general rule that an employer is not vicariously liable for negligence arising from employee travel to and from work. The Court noted that Texas law has long recognized the distinction between workers’ compensation claims under their statutory framework and the imposition of vicarious liability under the common law.
University of Texas System v. Bartek – 05-20-00525-CV – Dec 29, 2022
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) reversed the trail courts judgment in favor of the Plaintiff-Employee. The Court concluded that the testimony of the Plaintiff-Employee’s expert was unreliable and was therefore, no evidence.
Vista Medical Center Hospital v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company – 03-21-00242-CV – Dec 28, 2022
The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) affirmed the district court’s judgment that the Plaintiff-Medical-Providers were not entitled to additional reimbursement in a dispute over the proper reimbursement of workers’ compensation medical benefits. The Court affirmed its decision in prior cases and concluded that, for the 28 Texas Administrative Code § 134.401 exception to apply, “total audited charges exceed $40,000 and that an admission involved unusually costly and unusually extensive services.”
Henry v. Notzon – 05-20-00994-CV – Dec 22, 2022
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the Employee-Attorney in a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Appleton v. Consolidated Crane and Rigging, LLC – 09-21-00247-CV – Dec 22, 2022
The Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) affirmed the trial court’s no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Employer in a third-party respondeat superior claim by the Plaintiff-Third-Party. The Court noted the coming-and-going rule in the workers’ compensation context, which is generally, a worker’s injury received using public streets and highways when going or returning from the place of employment is not compensable as it was not incurred in the course and scope of employment.