Flores v. Oil-Tech Construction, LLC – 11-20-00208-CV – Aug 31, 2022
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) affirmed the judgment of the trial court with respect to Employee-Plaintiff’s claims against Non-Subscriber-Employer based on a duty to warn, a duty to train, negligence per se, and gross negligence. However, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court with respect to Employee-Plaintiff’s negligence claim for failure to provide a necessary instrumentality.
Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Hofer Builders, Inc. – 03-21-00086-CV – Aug 25, 2022
The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) reversed the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the Employer-Contractor and the Employer-Subcontractor against the Insurance Carrier. The court found that the Insurance Carrier was not contractually obligated to reimburse the Employers for injuries sustained by the Employee outside of Texas. The court reasoned that the Employer-Subcontractor did not have a place of business in Texas “at or from which” the Employee regularly worked.
Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Ramirez – 08-21-00145-CV – Aug 11, 2022
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the lower court and rendered judgment that Chapter 451 (workers’ compensation anti-retaliation law) does not provide for a claim against a client company for a temporary worker who pursues workers’ compensation benefits through their staffing agency employer and who was not covered under workers’ compensation by the client company.
Hudspeth County, Texas v. Ramirez – 08-21-00218-CV – Aug 5, 2022
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the trial court and ordered Beneficiary-Plaintiff’s causes of action for damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act and for exemplary damages under the Worker’s Compensation Act were dismissed for want of jurisdiction based on governmental immunity.
In re Hellas Construction, Inc. – 03-21-00182-CV – Jul 28, 2022
In re Hellas Construction, Inc. – July 28, 2022 – The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) granted Employer-Defendant’s conditional writ ordering the district court to abate the tort litigation until there is a final decision in the suit for judicial review of the DWC’s final order.
In re Great Plains Management Corporation – 665 S.W.3d 717 – Jul 27, 2022
The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for the entry of an order denying Employer-Defendant’s application to transfer responsibility of future payments made pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court reasoned that such action is prohibited by the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act.
Childress v. Sunz Insurance Company – 03-22-00266-CV – Jul 22, 2022
The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) dismissed Employee-Plaintiff’s appeal of the trial court’s order to transfer venue for want of jurisdiction.
Grant v. Wind Turbine and Energy Cables Corp. – 02-21-00036-CV – Jul 21, 2022
The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed the decision of the lower court to strike Employee-Plaintiff’s evidence and grant summary judgments for Co-Defendants. The Court found that the first Defendant was entitled to the exclusive remedy defense based on its contract with Defendant-Employer. The Court also found that the second Defendant was not an employer under the “right to control” test.
Estate of Gomez – 02-21-00290-CV – Jul 21, 2022
The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) dismissed Employer-Defendant’s appeal of an heirship determination by the probate court. The Employer-Defendant challenged the authority of the probate court because the Beneficiary-Plaintiff entered into an agreement before the Division of Workers’ Compensation – that she was not a legal beneficiary of the deceased. The Court noted that a defendant in a wrongful-death and survival action is not an interested person in an heirship determination because the defendant does not have a direct pecuniary interest in the estate.
Lupe Holdings, LP v. Sanchez – 01-21-00351-CV – Jul 21, 2022
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the lower courts order denying Defendants’ motion to arbitrate because failed to “timely invoke” arbitration by the deadline in the arbitration agreement. The Court noted that whether the arbitration demand was barred by a lack of timely notice of an intent to arbitrate was a matter of procedural arbitrability for the arbitrator—not the trial court—to decide.