Lubbock County v. Reyna – 07-19-00330-CV – Jan 5, 2021
The Seventh Court of Appeals (Amarillo) affirmed the decision of the lower court because the Employer-Defendant failed to preserve error. The lower court found that the Employee-Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain which resulted in incurable insanity or imbecility.
Wellons v. Valero Refining – New Orleans, L.L.C. – 616 S.W.3d 220 – Dec 31, 2020
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the lower court’s determination that the claims against Employer-Defendant should be determined under the substantive laws of Louisiana—which permit recovery for wrongful death when a decedent is covered by workers’ compensation only when the defendant committed intentional conduct—and not the substantive laws of Texas, which permit recovery of exemplary damages in such cases for gross negligence. The court reasoned, based on the Texas Supreme Court decision in Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner, 18 S.W.3d 202, 205 (Tex. 2000) citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 6, 145 (1971), that, “Recovery for tort or wrongful death will not be permitted in any state if the defendant is declared immune from such liability by the workmen’s compensation statute of a state under which the defendant is required to provide insurance against the particular risk …”
In re Rudolph Automotive, LLC – 616 S.W.3d 171 – Dec 30, 2020
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) denied a writ of mandamus regarding the lower court’s granting of a new trial. Defendant-Employer was a non-subscriber to workers’ compensation. The jury found Plaintiff-Employee was in the course and scope of employment, thus limiting the defenses of Defendant-Employer. However, the jury also assigned 10% comparative fault to Defendant-Employer, along with other inconsistent findings on damages. The lower court granted a new trail because of the inconsistent jury answers.
Ortiz v. Builders First Source – South Texas, LP – 617 S.W.3d 227 – Dec 29, 2020
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the order of the lower court, which denied Plaintiff-Employee’s Motion to Modify Arbitration Award from a non-subscriber arbitration. The Plaintiff-Employee sought to modify the arbitrator’s award because there was “an evident miscalculation of numbers.” The Court of Appeals found that the arbitration award accurately reflected the arbitrator’s intent, without material miscalculation of figures.
Salas v. Fluor Daniel Services Corporation – 616 S.W.3d 137 – Dec 29, 2020
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Employer regarding a retaliation discharge claim under Texas Labor Code 451.001. The Court concluded that, while section 451.001(1) requires the employee to file a workers’ compensation claim, an employee need not file a workers’ compensation claim to engage in protected conduct under section 451.001(3); an employee institutes or causes to be instituted a relevant proceeding under section 451.001(3) when he informs his employer of his on-the-job injury.
Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. v Lowery Masonry, LLC – 14-19-00539-CV – Dec 22, 2020
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the lower court’s summary judgment. Plaintiff (Medical Provider) and Defendant (Employer) entered into a contract whereby Employer would guarantee payment of medical services provided to an injured employee. One of the conditions of the guarantee concerned whether “the Company [Employer] has workers’ compensation insurance with Texas Mutual Insurance Company.” Although Employer provided proof of workers’ compensation insurance, the Court of Appeals determined that Employer did not conclusively establish an unambiguous certain or definite legal meaning in its favor.
PHI Air Medical, LLC v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company – 03-17-00081-CV – Dec 17, 2020
The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) granted a motion to abate while appeal is pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In re FW Services, Inc. – 09-20-00185-CV – Dec 10, 2020
The Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) conditionally granted a writ of mandamus to instruct the lower court to abate the case as long as a matter between the two parties was pending before the commission. There was pending dispute resolution at the commission between the parties to determine if the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury and if the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the injury.
Posey-Glenn v. Camden Development, Inc. – 05-19-01454-CV – Dec 10, 2020
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) affirmed the no evidence summary judgment of the lower court regarding plaintiff’s claim of retaliatory discharge under section 451.001 of the labor code. The Court confirmed that, in order to be probative, facts regarding a negative attitude towards an injured condition must be expressed by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue.
In re VC Palmwestheimer, LLC – 615 S.W.3d 655 – Dec 10, 2020
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) mentions workers’ compensation while affirming that the filing of a petition near or after the expiration of the statute of limitations does not prevent a defendant from moving for leave to designate a responsible third party.