El Paso Independent School District v. Portillo – 08-21-00021-CV – Jan 30, 2023
The 8th Court of Appeals (El Paso) affirmed the lowers court’s judgment by finding that the trial court provided the jury with a legally correct and sufficiently inclusive definition of “incurable imbecility.” The definition used by the lower court was, “A more or less advanced decay and feebleness of the intellectual faculties; that weakness of mind which, without depriving the person entirely of the use of his reason, leaves only the faculty of conceiving the most common and ordinary ideas and such as relate almost always to physical wants and habits.”
Hernandez v. Aerospace – 08-20-00015-CV – Sep 28, 2022
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the matter with directions to reinstate the jury’s verdict. The Court reasoned that the Defendant-Contractor did not conclusively establish that it was Plaintiff-Employee’s employer at the time of the accident for purposes of the exclusive remedies provision in the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Ramirez – 08-21-00145-CV – Aug 11, 2022
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the lower court and rendered judgment that Chapter 451 (workers’ compensation anti-retaliation law) does not provide for a claim against a client company for a temporary worker who pursues workers’ compensation benefits through their staffing agency employer and who was not covered under workers’ compensation by the client company.
Hudspeth County, Texas v. Ramirez – 08-21-00218-CV – Aug 5, 2022
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the trial court and ordered Beneficiary-Plaintiff’s causes of action for damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act and for exemplary damages under the Worker’s Compensation Act were dismissed for want of jurisdiction based on governmental immunity.
Casaubon Firm v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company – 08-20-00034-CV – Dec 21, 2021
The Eight Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the trial court’s judgment regarding attorney’s fees in Supplemental Income Benefit disputes. The case involved two separate worker’s compensation claims with the common issue: what constitutes a “dispute” for the purposes of triggering an employee’s right to seek attorney’s fees. In the first claim, the insurance carrier was presented with a claim for the third and fourth quarters of Supplemental Income Benefits that it neither agreed to pay, nor outright denied. Instead, the insurance carrier informed the worker that the applications for benefits were deficient and the insurance carrier would not act on them. The Court of Appeals concluded that the insurance carrier’s actions and inactions were sufficient to trigger a “dispute” as contemplated by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, thus ultimately making the insurance carrier liable for attorney’s fees necessary to resolve the matter. In the second claim, the insurance carrier initiated Supplemental Income Benefits, but it declined to stipulate to liability at a benefits review conference. For the second claim, the Court of Appeals found the issue was not ripe for decision because no claim for fees had yet been passed on by the administrative agency. As an adjunct to its rulings, the Court of Appeals also found that mandatory venue for a petition for judicial review that challenges only the issue of attorney’s fees is in Travis County.
In re Hudspeth County, Texas – 08-21-00169-CV – Nov 2, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to rule on Employer-Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction within thirty days.
Gonzalez v. Momentum Design & Construction Inc. – 633 S.W.3d 678 – Sep 09, 2021
Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. Bernardo L. GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. MOMENTUM DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee. No. 08-19-00004-CV | September 9, 2021 Attorneys & Firms ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Jeffrey B. Pownell, Scherr & Legate, PLLC, 109 N. Oregon, 12th Floor, El Paso, TX 79901. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: Noemi V. Lopez, Ray, Pena & […]
East Texas Educational Insurance Association v. Ramirez – 08-19-00220-CV – Aug 20, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) affirmed the jury’s findings that the Plaintiff-Employee was entitled to lifetime income benefits as a result of 1) an injury to the spine and/or the right lower extremity, and 2) an injury to both feet at or above the ankles that was a producing cause of the total loss of use of both feet at or above the ankles. The Employee-Plaintiff originally suffered a left hip fracture and dislocation. The Court reasoned that neurological changes and nerve damage, as well as severe pain and weakness, were brought on following the injury in question.
Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, LTD. – 632 S.W.3d 156 – Apr 12, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed the summary judgement granted by the lower court which found the Plaintiff-Employees’ negligence claims were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s. The Court determined the Defendant-Employer’s summary judgment evidence did not conclusively establish that the Plaintiff-Employees were acting in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the motor vehicle collision.
Martinez v. Boone – 624 S.W.3d 241 – Mar 29, 2021
The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso) reversed summary judgment orders of the lower court by finding that fact issues existed regarding 1) the Subcontractor-Employer’s relationship with the Employee; and 2) whether the Employee was in the course and scope of employment. Specifically, the Court found that a fact issue existed where the Master Service Agreement between the Contractor and Subcontractor-Employer (upstream contract) “unequivocally provides that anyone engaged to perform work under the MSA shall be deemed [Subcontractor-Employer’s] employee ‘for all purposes[,]'” coupled with conflicting evidence of the Subcontractor-Employer’s right to control. Further, the Court found that a fact issue existed regarding the course and scope of employment where the Employee was securing food and water for other workers as well as refueling his vehicle for which the Subcontractor-Employer reimbursed the Employee.