Kaplowitz v. Lone Star Tan GP – 14-20-00329-CV1 – Oct 19, 2021
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the trial court’s summary judgment on grounds of the exclusivity defense. Specifically, the court found that the summary judgment evidence established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendant-Employer was covered by workers’ compensation insurance. Defendant-Employer, therefore, failed to conclusively establish an affirmative defense of the exclusive remedy doctrine.
Kaplowitz v. Lone Star Tan GP, LLC – 14-20-00329-CV2 – Oct 19, 2021
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) withdrew its prior opinion which reversed the trial court’s summary judgment on grounds of the exclusivity defense. The new opinion affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment on Plaintiff-Employee’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim and reversed the trial court’s summary judgment on grounds of the exclusivity defense. Specifically, the court found that the summary judgment evidence established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendant-Employer was covered by workers’ compensation insurance. Defendant-Employer, therefore, failed to conclusively establish an affirmative defense of the exclusive remedy doctrine.
EAN Holdings, LLC v. Arce – 636 S.W.3d 290 – Oct 14, 2021
The Second Court of Appeals (Ft. Worth) held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict in a motor vehicle collision case where Plaintiff alleged Defendant was liable because its employee, acting in the course and scope of his employment while driving a vehicle owned by Defendant, negligently caused Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court reasoned that the Coming-and-Going Rule applied and the employee’s episodic conduct of transacting business from his home was insufficient to support a finding of course and scope of employment in this instance.
H-E-B v. Saenz – 01-20-00850-CV – Oct 12, 2021
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the trial court’s order denying Defendant-Employer’s motion to compel arbitration in a nonsubscriber case. The Plaintiff-Employee argued that the arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable because it was written in English, and she did not read or write English. The Court stated that illiteracy in English is insufficient to prove procedural unconscionability when the agreement is either explained to the party or translated into a language in which the party is literate. The Court noted that the Defendant-Employer provided an option to complete the New Hire Paperwork in Spanish.
Knox Waste Service, LLC v. Martinez – 11-19-00407-CV – Sep 30, 2021
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) ruled that, based on the employment contract, Employee-Plaintiff must arbitrate claims against Employer-Defendant. The Court further ruled that the employment contract did not cover actions between co-workers, so Employee-Plaintiff could proceed in court against Co-Employee-Defendant.
Harris County v. Dogan – 01-19-01006-CV – Sep 16, 2021
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The Court found that Plaintiff-Employee’s failure to timely file with the Division the proposed judgment that was actually signed by the court rendered the trial court’s judgment void.
Gonzalez v. Momentum Design & Construction Inc. – 633 S.W.3d 678 – Sep 09, 2021
Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. Bernardo L. GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. MOMENTUM DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee. No. 08-19-00004-CV | September 9, 2021 Attorneys & Firms ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Jeffrey B. Pownell, Scherr & Legate, PLLC, 109 N. Oregon, 12th Floor, El Paso, TX 79901. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: Noemi V. Lopez, Ray, Pena & […]
Phillips v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers’ Compensation – 05-21-00498-CV – Aug 31, 2021
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) dismissed Plaintiff-Employee’s appeal finding that neither an order denying a motion to appoint counsel nor a motion for discovery is an appealable interlocutory order that confers jurisdiction on the Court.
Williams v. City of Richardson – 05-20-00085-CV – Aug 31, 2021
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) affirmed the lower court’s judgment that Plaintiff-Employee did not sustain a compensable injury. The Court concluded that (1) there was more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the trial court’s implied findings, and (2) the trial court’s implied findings were not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust.
Wheeler v. Free – 11-19-00256-CV – Aug 26, 2021
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff-Employee’s suit against Defendant-Employer. The Court found that the Defendant-Employer’s act of merely paying a travel reimbursement to Plaintiff-Employee did not place the Plaintiff-Employee within the course and scope of employment. Further, the Court found the Defendant-Employer owed no duty for Plaintiff-Employee’s off-duty acts.