The University of Texas System v. Schrink – 05-24-00036-CV – May 5, 2025
The 5th Court of Appeals (Dallas) reversed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Melanie Schrink in a workers’ compensation case brought against the University of Texas System. The appellate court held that the UT System retained sovereign immunity from attorney’s fees claims under the Texas Labor Code and that no statute clearly and unambiguously waived that immunity. Because sovereign immunity deprived the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the fees claim, the appellate court rendered judgment dismissing Schrink’s claim for attorney’s fees. The UT System was also awarded costs of the appeal.
Lippert Components, Inc. v. Williams – 01-22-00501-CV – May 1, 2025
The 1st Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the trial court’s judgment awarding damages to Quinton Williams and rendered judgment that Williams take nothing on his claims against Lippert Components, Inc. The court held that Lippert, as the parent company of Kinro, did not owe Williams a legal duty under a negligent undertaking theory because it did not exercise specific control over the safety procedures that allegedly caused his injury. Regarding workers’ compensation, the court noted that Williams had stipulated that Lippert had a valid workers’ compensation policy at the time of the accident. However, because Lippert was not Williams’s employer, the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act did not apply directly to bar his claims. Instead, the court focused solely on the lack of duty and reversed the jury’s verdict on that basis.
Well-Pro Services, L.P. v. Torres – 05-23-00773-CV – Apr 30, 2025
The 5th Court of Appeals (Dallas) reversed a $1.84 million judgment in favor of Ramon Torres and rendered a take-nothing judgment against Well-Pro Services, L.P., holding that Well-Pro’s conduct was not a proximate cause of Torres’s injuries during oilfield testing operations. The court found that the intervening act of Torres’s employer—pressurizing a testing tool without proper safeguards—was a new and independent cause that broke the chain of causation. Although the trial included references to workers’ compensation, the decision did not turn on the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, as Well-Pro was not Torres’s employer and the case proceeded as a negligence action against a third-party contractor.
In re East Texas Medical Center Athens – 712 S.W.3d 88 – Apr 25, 2025
The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief in favor of the Defendant-Employer, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by striking the employer’s designation of responsible third parties in a nonsubscriber negligence suit filed by the Plaintiff-Employee. The Court clarified that the proportionate responsibility statute applies to negligence claims against nonsubscribing employers because such suits are not “actions to collect workers’ compensation benefits” under the Workers’ Compensation Act. It also held that the Act does not prohibit nonsubscribers from designating responsible third parties, and that sufficient evidence supported the designation in this case. As the employer had no adequate remedy by appeal, the Court ordered the trial court to vacate its order striking the designation.
Melton v. Big Creek Construction, Ltd. – 01-23-00245-CV – Apr 24, 2025
The 1st Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the Employer-Defendant, holding that the Employee-Plaintiff was not acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the motor vehicle accident. The court determined that the “coming and going rule” applied, and neither the general duty of care nor the “special mission” exception imposed liability on the employer.
Zeferino v. Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC – 01-23-00791-CV – Apr 15, 2025
The 1st Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the employer, Anderson Morrison Construction (AMC), and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that AMC, as a nonsubscriber to workers’ compensation insurance, could not rely on defenses such as the employee’s awareness of open and obvious risks. The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether AMC provided the necessary safety equipment for the job. Consequently, the court also reversed the summary judgment granted to the other defendants on the basis that the claims against them were derivative of the claims against AMC.
Lexington Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobile Corporation – 09-22-00174-CV – Apr 3, 2025
The 9th Court of Appeals (Beaumont) reversed the trial court’s judgment that awarded the Secondary-Employer coverage under the Insurance-Carrier’s umbrella insurance policy for injuries to the Primary-Employer’s employees. Because the Secondary-Employer was deemed a statutory employer under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the policy’s employer-liability exclusion barred any recovery.
Anderson v. Texas Mutual Insurance – 14-23-00942-CV – Mar 25, 2025
The 14th Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the Plaintiff-Employee providing a motorcycle escort was an independent contractor and thus did not qualify for workers’ compensation coverage under the carrier’s policy.
Elsell v. Encore Wire Corporation – 05-23-00588-CV – Mar 14, 2025
The 5th Court of Appeals (Dallas) reversed the trial court’s judgment that had dismissed the Plaintiff-Employee’s retaliatory-discharge suit. The Court concluded there was enough evidence to create a fact question on whether the stated reason for firing him was a pretext for workers’ compensation retaliation.
Gonzalez v. CS Auto, LTD – 710 S.W.3d 903 – Mar 13, 2025
The 13th Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi) affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, which relied on the Pandemic Liability Protection Act. The Court did not reach the Defendant-Employer’s exclusive remedy argument under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.