Jones v. Mansfield Independent School District – 02-24-00355-CV – May 15, 2025
The 2nd Court of Appeals (Ft. Worth) affirmed the dismissal of Joyce L. Jones’s lawsuit against Mansfield Independent School District, holding that the trial court properly granted a plea to the jurisdiction. Jones’s claims centered on alleged mishandling of her workers’ compensation case but did not seek judicial review of issues actually adjudicated by the Division of Workers’ Compensation. Because she failed to raise any legitimate appellate issues and did not exhaust administrative remedies for her claims, the court found it lacked jurisdiction.
Waste Management of Texas, Inc. v. Dodd – 02-23-00043-CV
The 2nd Court of Appeals (Ft. Worth) reversed the trial court’s judgment because the record lacked evidence to show that Decedent-Worker’s death was caused by grossly negligent acts or omissions attributable to Defendant-Employer.
Medrano v. Kerry Ingredients & Flavours – 02-24-00262-CV – Jan 9, 2025
The 2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed the lower court’s order granting summary judgment for the Defendant-Employer based on the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision and the election-of-remedies doctrine.
Lane v. Odle, Inc. – 02-24-00024-CV – Aug 22, 2024
The 2nd Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment against Employee-Plaintiff finding that the exclusive remedy applied. The Court found that the Employer-Defendant’s evidence conclusively established that Employee-Plaintiff was an employee and that he was covered by workers’ compensation insurance policy at the time of his work-related injuries.
Donaldson v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc. – 02-23-00271-CV – May 2, 2024
The 2nd Court of Appeals (Ft. Worth) reversed the lower court’s summary judgment in a non-subscriber, premises liability case. The Court found that the Plaintiff-Beneficiaries produced more than a scintilla of evidence that the Defendant-Employer created the dangerous condition.
Long v. R.E. Watson & Associates Inc. – 02-23-00144-CV – Feb 29, 2024
The 2nd Court of Appeals (Ft. Worth) affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment because the evidence established that Plaintiff-Employee’s foreman was not a corporate vice principal, and because Plaintiff-Employee presented no competent evidence raising a fact issue.
Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Jackson – 02-22-00203-CV – Mar 02, 2023
The Second Court of Appeals (Ft. worth) reversed the trial court’s orders that denied the Defendant-Employer’s plea to the jurisdiction and alternative no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a workers’ compensation retaliation claim. The Court noted that the Defendant-Employer provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff-Employee’s termination.
Grant v. Wind Turbine and Energy Cables Corp. – 02-21-00036-CV – Jul 21, 2022
The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed the decision of the lower court to strike Employee-Plaintiff’s evidence and grant summary judgments for Co-Defendants. The Court found that the first Defendant was entitled to the exclusive remedy defense based on its contract with Defendant-Employer. The Court also found that the second Defendant was not an employer under the “right to control” test.
Estate of Gomez – 02-21-00290-CV – Jul 21, 2022
The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) dismissed Employer-Defendant’s appeal of an heirship determination by the probate court. The Employer-Defendant challenged the authority of the probate court because the Beneficiary-Plaintiff entered into an agreement before the Division of Workers’ Compensation – that she was not a legal beneficiary of the deceased. The Court noted that a defendant in a wrongful-death and survival action is not an interested person in an heirship determination because the defendant does not have a direct pecuniary interest in the estate.
EAN Holdings, LLC v. Arce – 636 S.W.3d 290 – Oct 14, 2021
The Second Court of Appeals (Ft. Worth) held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict in a motor vehicle collision case where Plaintiff alleged Defendant was liable because its employee, acting in the course and scope of his employment while driving a vehicle owned by Defendant, negligently caused Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court reasoned that the Coming-and-Going Rule applied and the employee’s episodic conduct of transacting business from his home was insufficient to support a finding of course and scope of employment in this instance.