Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein PC v. Ace American Insurance Company – 03-25-00215-CV – Sep 4, 2025
The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by the Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein and Daniel Miramontes seeking to shift attorney’s fees to the workers’ compensation carrier. The court held that because Miramontes did not appeal the December 2022 judgment—which awarded over $80,000 in attorney’s fees to be paid out of his recovery and expressly stated those fees were not taxed against the carrier—that judgment became final. The Division of Workers’ Compensation lacked jurisdiction to revisit or alter the district court’s fee award, and Section 408.147(c) did not apply since it was Miramontes, not the carrier, who disputed the benefits determination.
Law v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers’ Compensation – 15-24-00097-CV – Aug 29, 2025
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s dismissal order and dismissed Randall Law’s claims with prejudice as moot. Law had challenged the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation’s Subsequent Injury Fund for switching from annual written to monthly phone verification of his eligibility. Because the agency later formally adopted a rule authorizing monthly verification, the court held that any alleged ultra vires conduct was cured and no relief could be granted. Thus, the workers’ compensation benefit verification challenge was rendered moot.
Pilot Travel Centers, LLC v. M Felder Trucking, LLC – 14-24-00224-CV
On appeal from the state court judgment, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Pilot. It held that, as a matter of law, Mark Felder was not a “Covered Person” under the nonsubscriber insurance policy at issue because Felder Trucking did not pay him wages directly. Without coverage, the causation element of fraud and contract claims failed, leaving no basis for liability.
Lilly v. Weisinger – 09-23-00258-CV – Aug 28, 2025
Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Glenn Eric LILLY, Appellant v. Michael Scott WEISINGER, Appellee NO. 09-23-00258-CV | Submitted on August 30, 2024 | Opinion Delivered August 28, 2025 On Appeal from the 284th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 22-07-08680-CV, Honorable Kristin Bays, Judge Attorneys & Firms Aaron Pool, Kevin Dubose, for […]
Rudolph Automotive, LLC v. Juarez – 08-24-00142-CV – Aug 20, 2025
The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order that had disregarded the jury’s findings and held, as a matter of law, that two employees were acting in the course and scope of employment when an accident occurred. Because Rudolph Automotive was a non-subscriber to workers’ compensation insurance, its liability and defenses depended on whether the employees were within the course and scope of employment. The appellate court ruled that the jury’s findings—that the employees were not in the course and scope—were supported by evidence and could not be set aside.
BFS Group, LLC v. De Leon – 14-24-00548-CV – Aug 19, 2025
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). BFS GROUP LLC and Builders FirstSource, Inc., Appellants v. Jose Gustavo DE LEON, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gustavo De Leon, Deceased, and Elizabeth Martinez Silva, Individually, Appellees NO. 14-24-00548-CV | Opinion filed August 19, 2025 On Appeal from the 157th District Court, […]
B&T Dependable Services, LLC v. Santos – 04-24-00521-CV – Aug 13, 2025
The San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of B&T Dependable and Bernell Gardener’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. The court held that the Division of Workers’ Compensation did not have exclusive jurisdiction over Edward Santos’s negligence claims because they were not based on entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits, following the Texas Supreme Court’s reasoning in Oteka. The court also found appellants failed to prove all elements of their election-of-remedies defense as a matter of law. As a result, Santos’s negligence lawsuit against his alleged employer may proceed despite his prior acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits.
Sanchez v. K&C Chicken 2, LLC – 11-24-00097-CV – Aug 7, 2025
The Eastland Court of Appeals reversed a plea to the jurisdiction and remanded. Applying Oteka II, it held the DWC lacks exclusive jurisdiction to decide course-and-scope when the employer asserts it as an affirmative defense and the plaintiff seeks no comp benefits. Exhaustion of DWC remedies was unnecessary.
In re Stonegate Contractors LLC – 05-25-00693-CV
Although In re Stonegate Contractors LLC is not a workers’ compensation benefits case, it directly implicates workers’ compensation exclusivity and employer immunity. The injured worker sued third parties rather than his employer, who was alleged to be a responsible third party. The court held that the employer could be designated despite the expiration of limitations because the worker filed suit just before the deadline, and workers’ compensation exclusivity likely barred any direct claim against the employer. The ruling reinforces that employer immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act does not preclude apportioning fault to the employer in third-party litigation.
Sentry Insurance v. Bristow – 720 S.W.3d 67 – Jul 24, 2025
The Eastland court of appeals reversed the $750,000 jury award and attorney’s fees previously granted to the injured worker, Donald Bristow, under the Texas Insurance Code, DTPA, and common-law bad faith. The court held that such claims were barred by the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Ruttiger, which limits these causes of action under the modern workers’ compensation system. Although the court affirmed that the trial court had jurisdiction over disputes arising from the Compromise Settlement Agreement (CSA), it found Bristow’s statutory and bad faith claims legally invalid. The court also reversed an award of attorney’s fees relating to Sentry’s failed motion to abate payments under the CSA.