Robinson v. Cox – 02-19-00370-CV – Dec 3, 2020
The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed summary judgment of the lower court which dismissed the injured employee’s suit against a co-employee. Specifically, the Court found that an injury caused by a co-employee was covered under the exclusive-remedy provision of Texas Labor Code Section 408.001 if the co-employee was within the course and scope of employment at the time of the injury.
Accident Fund Insurance Co. of America v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation – D-1-GN-18-000341 – Dec 2, 2020
The 53rd Judicial District Court (Travis County, Texas) found that 28 Tex. Admin. Code §130.102(d)(1)(D) is invalid because it authorizes a fourth method of showing entitlement to Supplemental Income Benefits which conflicts with Labor Code §408.1415(a)(3). Specifically, the Court found that the language in 28 Tex. Admin. Code §130.102(f) pertaining to making “work search contacts” is not applicable to a claimant that is not participating in work search efforts through the Texas Workforce Commission.
Chandra v. Leonardo DRS, Inc. – 06-20-00056-CV – Nov 24, 2020
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) reviewed the lower court’s actions in granting Defendant’s traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. The traditional portion argued, in part, that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court of Appeals found the lower court’s actions were proper but only discussed the no-evidence summary judgment.
Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. v. Lee – 612 S.W.3d 280 – Nov 20, 2020
The Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed that, while a narrow common-law exception to the exclusive remedy in fatal work-related injuries exists, the exception requires that “the employer must believe that its actions are substantially certain to result in a particular injury to a particular employee, not merely highly likely to increase overall risks to employees in the workplace.” The Court specifically rejected a localized-area test which would implicitly define intent to include knowledge of dangerous conditions that will eventually cause an injury, if that knowledge is specific to a particular time and small class of individuals.
In re Sentry Insurance – 11-20-00241-CV – Nov 6, 2020
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) found that the lower court did not have jurisdiction over disputed medical bills because the injured worker failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under “old-law.” Specifically, the Court stated that the injured worker was required to submit to the Division any claim that the insurance carrier delayed the payment of, or refused to pay, any medical expenses for services provided. The Court did find that the lower court had jurisdiction as to common law and statutory claims related to performance under the CSA, request for an accounting of the attorney’s fees paid pursuant to the CSA, and request for enforcement of the CSA on the ground that medical services are still required.
Menchaca vs. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania – 01-18-01122-CV – Nov 3, 2020
The First Court of Appeals (Houston) found that the trial court is “limited to issues decided by the appeals panel and on which judicial review is sought.” The court further found that because the record contains no evidence of causation, the trial court did not err in granting a no-evidence summary judgment motion as to extent of injury claims.
B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations Inc. – 613 S.W.3d 338 – Nov 2, 2020
Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. B.C., Appellant v. STEAK N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC., Appellee No. 05-14-00649-CV | Opinion Filed November 2, 2020 | Rehearing En Banc Denied November 2, 2020 Attorneys & Firms Matthew J. Kita, Attorney at Law, Dallas, for Appellant. Christopher L. Kurzner, James F. Parker III, Kurzner PC, Matthew R. McCarley, […]
United Specialty Insurance Co. v. Wasp Construction LLC – 13-19-00127-CV – Oct 29, 2020
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi) found that the insurance carrier for a subcontractor had no duty to defend and indemnify a general contractor for claims by the subcontractor’s injured employee.
Tozi v. RJ & Sons LLC – 614 S.W.3d 767 – Oct 28, 2020
The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) held that the trial court erred in granting the non-subscriber employer’s plea to the jurisdiction. The Fourth Court reasoned that there was an issue of material fact surrounding the location of employee’s contract for hire, and the Michigan Bureau of Workers’ Compensation may not have exclusive jurisdiction.
Texas Mutual Ins. Co. v. Stevenson – 05-18-00978-CV – Oct 2, 2020
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) determined that there was no evidence that Texas Mutual waived its subrogation rights.