Lewis v. Brown – 05-20-00855-CV – May 5, 2021
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) affirmed the lower court’s judgment granting Defendant-Sheriff’s plea to the jurisdiction. Plaintiff-Employee sought injunctive relief against Defendant-Sheriff—in her official capacity—in relation to Defendant-Sheriff’s actions regarding the use of the county jail and conditions in the county jail amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Both parties briefed the potential application of the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act (TWCA) and that it applies to “work-related injuries.” The Court noted that Plaintiff-Employee specifically pled he had not suffered an injury. The Court concluded that since Plaintiff-Employee pled neither an actionable ultra vires claim nor an actionable claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act, no further discussion was necessary of the TWCA.
Waste Management of Texas, Inc. v. Stevenson – 622 S.W.3d 273 – Apr 30, 2021
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and concluded that, in this dual-employment case, the Plaintiff-Employee qualified as the Defendant-Agency-Client’s employee under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Master Agreement between the Defendant-Staffing-Agency and Defendant-Agency-Client contained a clause that stated, “Personnel shall be independent contractors in respect of [Defendant-Agency-Client] and shall not be employees of [Defendant-agency-Client].” The court found that the fact the Defendant-Agency-Client did not directly employ the Plaintiff-Employee provided by Defendant-Staffing-Agency did not factor prominently in the analysis. Nor, the Court reasoned, did the result turn on the contractual relationship between Defendant-Staffing-Agency and Defendant-Agency-Client. Instead, the Court determined the Defendant-Agency-Client qualified as the worker’s employer under the Act by examining the parties’ conduct at the jobsite. Rather than focus on the legal question of who had the contractual right to control Plaintiff-Employee’s work, the Court looked instead to the factual question of who exercised the right to control as a practical matter in the course of the parties’ daily work. The concurrence opinion held that the contractual label created a fact issue regardless of the facts on the ground but also agreed that the right to control was conclusively established in this case.
JNM Express LLC v. Lozano – 627 S.W.3d 682 – Apr 22, 2021
Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg. JNM EXPRESS, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin, Appellants, v. Lauro LOZANO Jr. and Irene Lozano, Appellees. NUMBER 13-19-00374-CV | Delivered and filed April 22, 2021 | Rehearing Denied August 20, 2021 Attorneys & Firms Raymond L. Thomas Jr., McAllen, Melissa […]
Griffin v. American Zurich Insurance Company – 05-19-00630-CV – Apr 21, 2021
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) found that the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by involuntarily dismissing Plaintiff-Employee’s claims for want of prosecution and entering a take-nothing judgment. The Court reasoned that the practical effect of the lower court’s final judgment, which amounted to a death-penalty sanction, was to prematurely direct a verdict in Defendant-Carrier’s favor, without ever allowing Plaintiff-Employee to testify, make an offer of proof, or otherwise present his case.
Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System – 01-19-00300-CV – Apr 15, 2021
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) upheld the dismissal of Plaintiff-Employee’s premises liability claim against Defendant-Employer (Non Subscriber) based on injuries from a malfunctioning elevator. The Court confirmed that an employer has the same premises-liability duty to its employees as other landowners have to invitees on their premises.
Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, LTD. – 632 S.W.3d 156 – Apr 12, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the summary judgement granted by the lower court which found the Plaintiff-Employees’ negligence claims were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s. The Court determined the Defendant-Employer’s summary judgment evidence did not conclusively establish that the Plaintiff-Employees were acting in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the motor vehicle collision.
De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, GP, LLC – 11-19-00123-CV – Apr 8, 2021
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) held that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s evident purpose was to confine its operation to only accidental injuries. The Court found that the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision does not prohibit an employee or the employee’s spouse from pursuing intentional-injury claims against the employer. Further, the Court found that an injured employee’s acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not bar the injured employee’s claim under the Election of Remedies Doctrine, nor does it bar an employee-spouse’s derivative claim against the employer for intentional impairment of consortium.
Medrano v. Kerry Ingredients and Flavours, Inc. – 02-20-00247-CV – Apr 8, 2021
The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) found that where an employee’s claim is not “based on” entitlement to benefits, the claim is not subject to the Division’s exclusive jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Division’s exclusive jurisdiction does not extend to all cases that touch on workers’ compensation issues, and the district courts decide disputes about whether the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision applies as a defense to an injured worker’s personal injury suit. The Court reasoned that exclusive-remedy is an affirmative defense that is not disposed of with a motion to dismiss such as a plea to the jurisdiction, and exclusive-remedy should instead be raised through a motion for summary judgment or proven at trial.
Martinez v. Boone – 624 S.W.3d 241 – Mar 29, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed summary judgment orders of the lower court by finding that fact issues existed regarding 1) the Subcontractor-Employer’s relationship with the Employee; and 2) whether the Employee was in the course and scope of employment. Specifically, the Court found that a fact issue existed where the Master Service Agreement between the Contractor and Subcontractor-Employer (upstream contract) “unequivocally provides that anyone engaged to perform work under the MSA shall be deemed [Subcontractor-Employer’s] employee ‘for all purposes[,]'” coupled with conflicting evidence of the Subcontractor-Employer’s right to control. Further, the Court found that a fact issue existed regarding the course and scope of employment where the Employee was securing food and water for other workers as well as refueling his vehicle for which the Subcontractor-Employer reimbursed the Employee.
Mariscal v. McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. – 13-19-00211-CV – Mar 25, 2021
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi) affirmed a summary judgment against Plaintiff-Employee from the lower court. The Court found that the OCIP entered into between the general contractor and the subcontractor extended the employee/employer relationship throughout all tiers of the subcontractor’s work under Texas Labor Code § 406.123. The Court further reasoned that the OCIP was valid because the general contractor ensured that if a lapse in the OCIP occurred, the subcontractor was not able to opt out of coverage.