In re PVF Industrial Supply, Inc. – 06-26-00021-CV – Mar 11, 2026
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying PVF’s motion to designate UPS as a responsible third party. The court found the motion was timely and that PVF complied with disclosure requirements, so the statutory bar did not apply. It also noted that because UPS was a workers’ compensation subscriber, the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation, meaning limitations concerns did not prevent the designation.
Taylor v. Norton – 06-25-00014-CV – Nov 21, 2025
Although this case does not arise from the Texas Workers’ Compensation system, it is relevant because it interprets how statutory definitions, particularly “family” and “consanguinity,” continue to operate even after termination of parental rights. The court held that biological descent, not legal parental status, controls whether someone qualifies as “family” under statutes that incorporate Government Code §573.022. This principle applies similarly in workers’ compensation contexts, where standing, beneficiary status, and certain rights depend on statutory family relationships rather than custody or adoption history. Thus, the decision confirms that termination and adoption do not erase consanguinity for statutes that rely on blood relationship, a concept that can inform workers’ compensation analyses involving death benefits and related determinations.
Pittsburg Steel, LLC v. Palmer – 06-23-00021-CV – Nov 13, 2023
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) affirmed the lower court’s judgment that the Plaintiff-Employee was discharged by the Defendant-Employee because he had instituted “a workers’ compensation claim in good faith.”
Barker v. Sam Houston University – 06-22-00076-CV – Jun 22, 2023
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) affirmed the lower court’s finding that the Employee-Plaintiff was in the course and scope of employment at the time of her injury. The Court found that the portion of the public street where the Plaintiff-Employee was injured was on Defendant-Employer’s premises, and even if Defendant-Employer did not own the roadway, it was in such proximity and relation as to be in practical effect a part of Defendant-Employer’s premises.
In re Porter – 06-21-00066-CV – Aug 6, 2021
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) denied Defendant-Employer’s petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the Court to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying their plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The Defendant-Employer argued that the claim was barred because the Plaintiff-Employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies according to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The Plaintiff-Employee argued that she was not in the course and scope at the time of the injury because she had clocked out of work. The Court found that the Defendant-Employer failed to provide a record sufficient to establish its right to mandamus relief because the record did not contain undisputed evidence that Plaintiff-Employee was required to exhaust administrative remedies.
Load Trail, LLC v. Julian – 622 S.W.3d 472 – Jan 7, 2021
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) affirmed the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitrator’s final award in a nonsubscriber case. The Employer-Defendant sought to vacate the arbitrator’s award arguing evident partiality of the arbitrator. The Court, quoting Weber v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 545, 550 (N.D. Tex. 2006), noted, “This is an ‘onerous burden,’ because the urging party must demonstrate that the alleged partiality is ‘direct, definite, and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain or speculative.’ ” Id. (quoting Weber, 455 F.Supp.2d at 550)).
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.
XL Insurance America, Inc. v. Covington – 06-20-00048-CV – Oct 1, 2020
The Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) found the lower court’s order denying petition for intervention was issued at a time when the trial court no longer had plenary power over its judgment. As such, the cause was expired and the order was a nullity.
McMillan v. Hearne – 584 S.W.3d 505 – Jul 22, 2019
Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. Charles Duncan MCMILLAN d/b/a Anthony Sign Company, Appellant v. Kelly Shane HEARNE, Appellee No. 06-18-00040-CV | Date Submitted: May 8, 2019 | Date Decided: July 22, 2019 Attorneys & Firms James R. Rodgers, Lead Counsel, Sarah L. Kaminar, The Moore Law Firm, LLP, 100 North Main St., Paris, TX […]
Steele v. Murphy & Beane, Inc. – 06-19-00008-CV – Jul 10, 2019
Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. Melanie STEELE, Appellant v. MURPHY & BEANE, INC., and Viacom, Inc., Appellees No. 06-19-00008-CV | Submitted: July 2, 2019 | Decided: July 10, 2019 Attorneys & Firms Brian Buster, Christopher Bean & Associates, 1301 S IH-35 N, Ste. 105, Austin, TX 78741, for Appellant. Michael Gonzales, Christopher C. White, […]