Llano Logistics, Inc. v. Carmona – 07-21-00254-CV – Apr 14, 2022
The Seventh Court of Appeals (Amarillo) reversed the lower court’s order denying the Defendant-Employer’s (Non-Subscriber) motion to compel arbitration. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff-Employee failed to meet the burden to prove that the Defendant-Employer substantially invoked the judicial process, causing the Defendant-Employer to impliedly waived its right to arbitration.
Juarez v. Texas Legislative Council – 14-20-00331-CV – Mar 17, 2022
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the lower court’s order granting the Employer-Defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction on multiple claims, including a claim for workers’ compensation retaliation. The court found that the Employee-Plaintiff had insufficient evidence to prove but-for causation.
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich American Insurance Company – 642 S.W.3d 551 – Mar 4, 2022
The Texas Supreme Court, in response to certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, clarified whether Texas Anti-Indemnity Act (TAIA) section 151.103 allows additional insured coverage when an injured worker brings a personal injury claim against an additional insured (indemnitee), and the worker and the indemnit[or] are deemed ‘co-employees’ … for purposes of the Texas Worker’ Compensation Act (TWCA). The Court determined it did not. The Court reasoned that deeming an injured worker to be a co-employee with the indemnitor for purposes of the TWCA does not make that worker an employee of the indemnitor under the plain language of the TAIA, and because the Texas Legislature expressly separated these two statutory schemes, the TWCA does not affect the enforceability of an additional-insured provision under the TAIA.
Manley v. Wise – 03-21-00120-CV – Feb 24, 2022
The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) reversed the district court’s denial to dismiss individual tort actions against Co-Employee-Defendants. The Court reasoned that a defendant is entitled to dismissal upon proof that the plaintiff’s suit is (1) based on conduct within the scope of the defendant’s employment with a governmental unit and (2) could have been brought against the governmental unit under the Tort Claims Act.
Phi Air Medical, LLC v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company – 641 S.W.3d 543 – Feb 3, 2022
On remand from the Texas Supreme Court, the Third Court of Appeals (Austin) reversed its prior decision and affirmed a portion of the trial court’s judgment determining that the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) does not preempt the reimbursement provisions for medical care under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA). The Court further determined that the ADA does not preempt TWCA’s balance-billing requirements because PHI Air failed to prove a “significant effect” and did not meet its summary-judgment burden. As part of its order, the Court held that the applicable date for TWCA Section 413.0312’s Benefit Review Conference requirement is the date on which a Medical Fee Dispute Request is first filed. The Court further held that TWCA Section 413.031(k-1)’s requirement that a petition for judicial review be filed within forty-five days of mailing a SOAH decision is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.
Reyes v. Lubrizol Corporation – 14-20-00177-CV – Jan 25, 2022
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff-Employee’s lawsuit based on Defendant-General-Contractor’s entitlement to the exclusive-remedy defense by operation of a “general contractor’s” written agreement pursuant to section 406.123. The Court found that the summary-judgment evidence conclusively established that the general contractor was contractually obligated to reimburse the subcontractor for the workers’ compensation premiums and complied with that contractual obligation.
HNMC, Inc. v. Chan – 637 S.W.3d 919 – Dec 30, 2021
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) denied Employer’s challenge to the lower court’s denial of summary judgment regarding whether the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act barred Employee’s relief. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, when a motion for summary judgment is denied by the trial judge and the case is tried on the merits, “[t]he party’s remedy is to assign error to the trial court’s judgment ultimately rendered following trial on the merits.”
Casaubon Firm v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company – 08-20-00034-CV – Dec 21, 2021
The Eight Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the trial court’s judgment regarding attorney’s fees in Supplemental Income Benefit disputes. The case involved two separate worker’s compensation claims with the common issue: what constitutes a “dispute” for the purposes of triggering an employee’s right to seek attorney’s fees. In the first claim, the insurance carrier was presented with a claim for the third and fourth quarters of Supplemental Income Benefits that it neither agreed to pay, nor outright denied. Instead, the insurance carrier informed the worker that the applications for benefits were deficient and the insurance carrier would not act on them. The Court of Appeals concluded that the insurance carrier’s actions and inactions were sufficient to trigger a “dispute” as contemplated by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, thus ultimately making the insurance carrier liable for attorney’s fees necessary to resolve the matter. In the second claim, the insurance carrier initiated Supplemental Income Benefits, but it declined to stipulate to liability at a benefits review conference. For the second claim, the Court of Appeals found the issue was not ripe for decision because no claim for fees had yet been passed on by the administrative agency. As an adjunct to its rulings, the Court of Appeals also found that mandatory venue for a petition for judicial review that challenges only the issue of attorney’s fees is in Travis County.
Tejas Tabular Products, Inc. v. Palacios – 01-21-00136-CV – Nov 18, 2021
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the trial court’s order denying Non-Subscriber-Employer-Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court found that the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated questions about “the arbitrability of any particular claim” to the arbitrator, and the trial court abused its discretion by removing that issue from the arbitrator.
In re Hudspeth County, Texas – 08-21-00169-CV – Nov 2, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to rule on Employer-Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction within thirty days.