Dicex International, Inc. v. Amigo Staffing, Inc. – 04-20-00018-CV – Mar 24, 2021
The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) found that, where a claim was initiated prior to the effective date of Texas Labor Code 93.004(b), a staffing agreement must satisfy Texas Labor Code 417.004’s requirement of “a written agreement with the third party to assume the liability.” The Court determined that the staffing agreement between the parties failed to meet this requirement because it did not mention indemnity, much less contain an express indemnity clause. As such, the Court concluded that the agreement was insufficient to show Appellee-Staffing-Company expressly assumed liability to indemnify third parties for injuries to Appellant-Employer’s employees.
Thurston Owens & Newman LLC v. Davis – 12-19-00384-CV – Mar 18, 2021
The Twelfth Court of Appeal (Tyler) reversed the lower court, in part. The Court did affirm the lower court’s ruling refusing a request to strike the designation of Gill Electric as a responsible third party because Gill Electric, as a subscriber to a workers’ compensation insurance plan, was an immune employer under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.
Floyd v. Gateway Mortgage Group – 02-19-00356-CV – Mar 11, 2021
Workers’ compensation is only mentioned in the Court’s reference to jurisdiction as prescribed by Texas Government Code § 25.0003(c), which grants jurisdiction to statutory county courts to hear “appeals of final rulings and decisions of the division of workers’ compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance regarding workers’ compensation claims, regardless of the amount in controversy.”
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. Stegall – 05-21-00644-CV – Feb 22, 2021
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Employee on her claim for premises liability. The Court noted that the Plaintiff-Employee was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of the injury because she had not clocked in or started working. The Court further noted that the insurance-carrier denied the claim.
Patients Medical Center v. Facility Insurance Corporation – 623 S.W3d 336 – Jan 29, 2021
The Texas Supreme Court held that in a worker’s compensation medical fee dispute resolution proceeding, the burden of proof in a contested case hearing before State Office of Administrative Hearings is on the party seeking review of the Division’s initial Medical Fee Dispute Resolution decision.
Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Texas Medical Association – 616 S.W.3d 558 – Jan 29, 2021
The Texas Supreme Court held that chiropractic rules defining the musculoskeletal system and improving the subluxation complex as involving nerves in addition to muscle and bones, read in context, do not exceed the statutory scope of chiropractic practice. The Court further found that the rule authorizing chiropractors to perform an eye-movement test for neurological problems that is known by the acronym VONT did not exceed the statutory scope of chiropractic practice.
Munguia, as Next Friend of E.S.U v. Justrod, Inc. – 14-18-01059-CV – Jan 28, 2021
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the judgment of the lower court in a wrongful death action that resulted from a work related injury. The lower court granted both Employer-Defendant’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court of Appeals noted that Plaintiff-Beneficiary only challenged the No Evidence Summary Judgment, and that “an appellant must challenge all possible grounds on which a summary judgment could have been granted, whether properly or improperly.”
Texas Department of Motor Vehicles v. Bustillos – 08-18-00165-CV – Jan 25, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the trial court’s order denying the Employer-Defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction and rendered judgment dismissing Employee-Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The Court noted that to establish a causal link between her firing and her filing of a workers’ compensation claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “the employer’s action would not have occurred when it did ….” The Court held that the Employer-Defendant presented evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. The Court added that an employee’s subjective belief alone is not enough to support the causal connection required for workers’ compensation retaliation cause of action.
Ellis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit – 02-19-00224-CV – Jan 14, 2021
The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed the judgment of the lower court which found the Plaintiff-Employee’s compensable injury did not extend to a rotator cuff tear or right wrist tendonitis. The Employee-Plaintiff challenged the lower court’s requirements that the conditions required expert medical evidence of causation. However, the Employee-Plaintiff failed to request Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law from the lower court. Consequently, the Court determined that the trial court’s judgment implies all findings necessary to support it.
Load Trail, LLC v. Julian – 622 S.W.3d 472 – Jan 7, 2021
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) affirmed the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitrator’s final award in a nonsubscriber case. The Employer-Defendant sought to vacate the arbitrator’s award arguing evident partiality of the arbitrator. The Court, quoting Weber v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 545, 550 (N.D. Tex. 2006), noted, “This is an ‘onerous burden,’ because the urging party must demonstrate that the alleged partiality is ‘direct, definite, and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain or speculative.’ ” Id. (quoting Weber, 455 F.Supp.2d at 550)).