Lone Star Well Service LLC v. RMTDC Operations – 731 S.W.3d 93 – Feb 12, 2026
The court of appeals held that a contractor was entitled to defense and indemnity as a third-party beneficiary under a master services agreement that satisfied the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act’s safe harbor provision. The court affirmed the obligation to defend and indemnify but remanded for the trial court to determine and specify the monetary limits of the indemnity obligation. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
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.
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.
City of Stephenville v. Belew – 692 S.W.3d 347 – Mar 7, 2024
The 11th Court of Appeals (Eastland) reversed the trial court’s judgment finding the Claimant-Employee’s pancreatic cancer was compensable. The Court concluded that Texas Gov’t Code § 607.055 imposes an initial burden on a worker’s compensation claimant to establish a general causal link between the cancerous condition that they developed during their employment and the specific exposures identified in the statute, pursuant to the criteria promulgated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Flores v. Oil-Tech Construction, LLC – 11-20-00208-CV – Aug 31, 2022
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) affirmed the judgment of the trial court with respect to Employee-Plaintiff’s claims against Non-Subscriber-Employer based on a duty to warn, a duty to train, negligence per se, and gross negligence. However, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court with respect to Employee-Plaintiff’s negligence claim for failure to provide a necessary instrumentality.
Knox Waste Service, LLC v. Martinez – 11-19-00407-CV – Sep 30, 2021
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) ruled that, based on the employment contract, Employee-Plaintiff must arbitrate claims against Employer-Defendant. The Court further ruled that the employment contract did not cover actions between co-workers, so Employee-Plaintiff could proceed in court against Co-Employee-Defendant.
Wheeler v. Free – 11-19-00256-CV – Aug 26, 2021
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff-Employee’s suit against Defendant-Employer. The Court found that the Defendant-Employer’s act of merely paying a travel reimbursement to Plaintiff-Employee did not place the Plaintiff-Employee within the course and scope of employment. Further, the Court found the Defendant-Employer owed no duty for Plaintiff-Employee’s off-duty acts.
In re Sentry Insurance – 11-21-00107-CV – Jul 30, 2021
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) found that the lower court abused its discretion when, in an old-law claim, the court denied the Insurance-Carrier’s plea to the jurisdiction as to the Plaintiff-Employee’s claims based on the delayed payment of, or failure to pay, medical expenses. The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff-Employee did not make a formal request that the Division consider any unpaid medical bill and the Division did not rule on any dispute over an unpaid medical bill; therefore, the Plaintiff-Employee did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to any claims based on or related to those medical bills. The Court did find that the lower court had jurisdiction regarding an award from the Division because, although the substantive award entered was favorable to him, the Plaintiff-Employee did not prevail on his position that the Division lacked jurisdiction to enter an award based on a Compromise Settlement Agreement.
De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, GP, LLC – 11-19-00123-CV – Apr 8, 2021
The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland) held that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s evident purpose was to confine its operation to only accidental injuries. The Court found that the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision does not prohibit an employee or the employee’s spouse from pursuing intentional-injury claims against the employer. Further, the Court found that an injured employee’s acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not bar the injured employee’s claim under the Election of Remedies Doctrine, nor does it bar an employee-spouse’s derivative claim against the employer for intentional impairment of consortium.
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.