MedFinManager, LLC v. Salas – 04-20-00051-CV – Aug 25, 2021
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to MedFin’s breach of contract and quantum meruit claims and as to litigation costs. The Court also reversed and remanded for a determination of MedFin’s attorney’s fees related to its promissory estoppel claim.
East Texas Educational Insurance Association v. Ramirez – 08-19-00220-CV – Aug 20, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) affirmed the jury’s findings that the Plaintiff-Employee was entitled to lifetime income benefits as a result of 1) an injury to the spine and/or the right lower extremity, and 2) an injury to both feet at or above the ankles that was a producing cause of the total loss of use of both feet at or above the ankles. The Employee-Plaintiff originally suffered a left hip fracture and dislocation. The Court reasoned that neurological changes and nerve damage, as well as severe pain and weakness, were brought on following the injury in question.
In re Porter – 06-21-00066-CV – Aug 6, 2021
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) denied Defendant-Employer’s petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the Court to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying their plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The Defendant-Employer argued that the claim was barred because the Plaintiff-Employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies according to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The Plaintiff-Employee argued that she was not in the course and scope at the time of the injury because she had clocked out of work. The Court found that the Defendant-Employer failed to provide a record sufficient to establish its right to mandamus relief because the record did not contain undisputed evidence that Plaintiff-Employee was required to exhaust administrative remedies.
In re Sentry Insurance – 11-21-00107-CV – Jul 30, 2021
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) found that the lower court abused its discretion when, in an old-law claim, the court denied the Insurance-Carrier’s plea to the jurisdiction as to the Plaintiff-Employee’s claims based on the delayed payment of, or failure to pay, medical expenses. The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff-Employee did not make a formal request that the Division consider any unpaid medical bill and the Division did not rule on any dispute over an unpaid medical bill; therefore, the Plaintiff-Employee did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to any claims based on or related to those medical bills. The Court did find that the lower court had jurisdiction regarding an award from the Division because, although the substantive award entered was favorable to him, the Plaintiff-Employee did not prevail on his position that the Division lacked jurisdiction to enter an award based on a Compromise Settlement Agreement.
Garcia v. City of West Columbia, Texas – 01-20-00653-CV – Jul 27, 2021
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) did not affirm the lower court’s summary judgment finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, if the plaintiff qualified as an employee, because of the failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas workers’ compensation act. The Court reasoned that there was no evidence presented of a workers’ compensation policy by either the contractor or the City of West Columbia.
Great Divide Insurance Company v. Fortenberry – 665 S.W.3d 627 – Jul 26, 2021
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) reversed the lower court’s judgment because neither party made the necessary venue showing. The Court noted that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act includes a mandatory venue provision requiring that a suit for judicial review of an appeals panel decision be filed in the county where the employee resided at the time of the injury. The Court indicated that prima facia proof to satisfy residency requirements are (1) a fixed place of abode within the possession of the party, (2) occupied or intended to be occupied consistently over a substantial period of time, and (3) which is permanent rather than temporary.
In re Morales – 01-20-00794-CV – Jul 13, 2021
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) denied Employee-Plaintiff’s writ of mandamus because Employee-Plaintiff presented no complaint about a trial court ruling or an action that required the Court to enforce its jurisdiction.
Alleyton Resource Company v. Ball – 14-19-00816-CV – Jun 3, 2021
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the final judgment of the lower court which found in favor of the Plaintiff-Employee’s claim of retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.
Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Ochoa – 13-20-00060-CV – May 27, 2021
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi) reversed the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Beneficiary. The Court reasoned that, since the Appeals Panel found that Plaintiff-Beneficiary and Decedent-Employee were informally married, Defendant-Carrier had the burden to disprove the marriage. The Court found the evidence presented that Plaintiff-Beneficiary and Decedent-Employee were engaged and agreed to be married at some point in the future with no date yet set, is evidence that they were not presently married at the time of Decedent-Employee’s death. As such, Defendant-Carrier presented more than a scintilla of evidence and raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an agreement to be married existed at the time of Decedent-Employee’s death.
Fenley v. Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc. – 14-19-00851-CV – May 11, 2021
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment against the Plaintiff-Employee regarding a claim for workers’ compensation retaliation. The Court found that the Defendant-Employer produced evidence showing there was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination, which shifted the burden back to the Plaintiff-Employee to produce controverting evidence of a retaliatory motive. The Court concluded the Plaintiff-Employee failed to make this showing with respect to the workers’ compensation retaliation claim. The Court reversed the decision of the lower court regarding Plaintiff-Employee’s claim for age discrimination.