Sharman v. American Zurich – 05-24-01394-CV – Mar 25, 2026
Sharman failed to overturn the denial of her workers’ compensation claim, and the appellate court affirmed a directed verdict in favor of American Zurich. The court held there was no evidence of a compensable injury because Sharman presented no admissible evidence or testimony establishing that she was injured in the course and scope of her employment. It also found that any excluded evidence was harmless and that Sharman failed to preserve or properly brief her appellate complaints.
Colorado Ranchers, Inc. v. Beltran – 05-25-00243-CV – Mar 19, 2026
The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment for the employer, holding that there was no evidence supporting the jury’s retaliation finding. The court concluded that the employee did not engage in a protected activity under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act because her complaints about unpaid wages did not allege or oppose any discriminatory practice. Without evidence of protected activity, a required element of retaliation was missing, making the jury’s finding legally insufficient.
Admiral Insurance Company v. Lippert Components Inc. – 10-23-00250-CV – Mar 12, 2026
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the insurer had a duty to defend the insured companies in the underlying personal injury suit. Applying the eight-corners rule, the court held that the plaintiff’s petition alleged facts that potentially fell within policy coverage and did not conclusively establish that the “injury to workers” exclusion applied. Because the pleadings did not unambiguously show the claimant was an employee or other excluded worker of the insureds, and extrinsic evidence could not be considered, the insurer could not avoid its defense obligation.
Lee. v. Grand Prairie Independent School District – 03-25-00938-CV – Mar 12, 2026
The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. As a result, the underlying decision affirming the Division of Workers’ Compensation remained undisturbed.
In re PVF Industrial Supply, Inc. – 06-26-00021-CV – Mar 11, 2026
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying PVF’s motion to designate UPS as a responsible third party. The court found the motion was timely and that PVF complied with disclosure requirements, so the statutory bar did not apply. It also noted that because UPS was a workers’ compensation subscriber, the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation, meaning limitations concerns did not prevent the designation.
Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas – 12-25-00047-CV – Mar 11, 2026
The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Thomas, holding that the employer defendants failed to conclusively prove that Thomas was an employee, so the exclusive-remedy defense under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act did not apply. The court determined that conflicting evidence about whether Thomas was merely “trying out” for a job created a fact issue for the jury regarding employment status. It also rejected defenses such as judicial estoppel and one-satisfaction, and upheld evidentiary rulings excluding workers’ compensation benefits and other evidence.
Sanchez Guillen v. National American Insurance Company – 03-25-00372-CV – Mar 11, 2026
Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. Macedonio Sanchez Guillen, Appellant v. National American Insurance Company, Cash Construction Company, and Richard Pena, Appellees NO. 03-25-00372-CV | Filed: March 11, 2026 FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-25-001140, THE HONORABLE CORY LIU, JUDGE PRESIDING Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis MEMORANDUM OPINION Rosa Lopez […]
Torres v. Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc. – 05-24-00827-CV – Mar 6, 2026
The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of both the general contractor and the employer. It held that the general contractor owed no duty under the Texas Workers’ Compensation framework because it did not retain contractual or actual control over the subcontractor’s work. As to the employer, the court found no evidence of gross negligence, which is required to overcome workers’ compensation exclusivity in a fatal injury case.
King v. ER Opco Craig – 07-25-00094-CV – Mar 3, 2026
The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the non-subscriber employer, holding that no legal duty was breached when the employee slipped on naturally occurring ice. Even if the employer voluntarily undertook efforts to address the icy conditions, the court found that such actions did not increase the risk of harm nor create reasonable reliance by the employee. Because no duty existed under premises liability or negligent undertaking theories, the employee’s claim failed as a matter of law.
Juarez v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company – 10-26-00042-CV – Feb 26, 2026
The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The claimant sought review of an adverse Division of Workers’ Compensation appeals panel decision regarding impairment rating, but the filing should have proceeded as a petition for judicial review in district court rather than as a direct appeal. Because no final, appealable judgment was before the appellate court, the appeal was dismissed.