Cameron International Corporation v. Martinez – 21-0614 – Dec 30, 2022
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for the Defendant in an action by third parties. The Court held that the court of appeals incorrectly relied upon the “special mission” exception in declining to apply the general rule that an employer is not vicariously liable for negligence arising from employee travel to and from work. The Court noted that Texas law has long recognized the distinction between workers’ compensation claims under their statutory framework and the imposition of vicarious liability under the common law.
In re YRC Inc. – 646 S.W.3d 805 – Jun 17, 2022
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision denying a motion to designate employer as responsible third party. The Court reasoned, in part, that there is no applicable limitations period for a plaintiff to join a third-party employer as a defendant on a tort cause of action when the exclusive remedy—which is successfully pursued—is workers’ compensation.
Industrial Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refining Company, LLC – 20-0174 – Jun 10, 2022
The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s order denying permissive appeal in a suit by Contractor-Plaintiff against Sub-Contractor-Defendant seeking to enforce the indemnity provision of their contract.
Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich American Insurance Company – 642 S.W.3d 551 – Mar 4, 2022
The Texas Supreme Court, in response to certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, clarified whether Texas Anti-Indemnity Act (TAIA) section 151.103 allows additional insured coverage when an injured worker brings a personal injury claim against an additional insured (indemnitee), and the worker and the indemnit[or] are deemed ‘co-employees’ … for purposes of the Texas Worker’ Compensation Act (TWCA). The Court determined it did not. The Court reasoned that deeming an injured worker to be a co-employee with the indemnitor for purposes of the TWCA does not make that worker an employee of the indemnitor under the plain language of the TAIA, and because the Texas Legislature expressly separated these two statutory schemes, the TWCA does not affect the enforceability of an additional-insured provision under the TAIA.
Waste Management of Texas, Inc. v. Stevenson – 622 S.W.3d 273 – Apr 30, 2021
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and concluded that, in this dual-employment case, the Plaintiff-Employee qualified as the Defendant-Agency-Client’s employee under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Master Agreement between the Defendant-Staffing-Agency and Defendant-Agency-Client contained a clause that stated, “Personnel shall be independent contractors in respect of [Defendant-Agency-Client] and shall not be employees of [Defendant-agency-Client].” The court found that the fact the Defendant-Agency-Client did not directly employ the Plaintiff-Employee provided by Defendant-Staffing-Agency did not factor prominently in the analysis. Nor, the Court reasoned, did the result turn on the contractual relationship between Defendant-Staffing-Agency and Defendant-Agency-Client. Instead, the Court determined the Defendant-Agency-Client qualified as the worker’s employer under the Act by examining the parties’ conduct at the jobsite. Rather than focus on the legal question of who had the contractual right to control Plaintiff-Employee’s work, the Court looked instead to the factual question of who exercised the right to control as a practical matter in the course of the parties’ daily work. The concurrence opinion held that the contractual label created a fact issue regardless of the facts on the ground but also agreed that the right to control was conclusively established in this case.
Patients Medical Center v. Facility Insurance Corporation – 623 S.W3d 336 – Jan 29, 2021
The Texas Supreme Court held that in a worker’s compensation medical fee dispute resolution proceeding, the burden of proof in a contested case hearing before State Office of Administrative Hearings is on the party seeking review of the Division’s initial Medical Fee Dispute Resolution decision.
Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Texas Medical Association – 616 S.W.3d 558 – Jan 29, 2021
The Texas Supreme Court held that chiropractic rules defining the musculoskeletal system and improving the subluxation complex as involving nerves in addition to muscle and bones, read in context, do not exceed the statutory scope of chiropractic practice. The Court further found that the rule authorizing chiropractors to perform an eye-movement test for neurological problems that is known by the acronym VONT did not exceed the statutory scope of chiropractic practice.
Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. v. Lee – 612 S.W.3d 280 – Nov 20, 2020
The Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed that, while a narrow common-law exception to the exclusive remedy in fatal work-related injuries exists, the exception requires that “the employer must believe that its actions are substantially certain to result in a particular injury to a particular employee, not merely highly likely to increase overall risks to employees in the workplace.” The Court specifically rejected a localized-area test which would implicitly define intent to include knowledge of dangerous conditions that will eventually cause an injury, if that knowledge is specific to a particular time and small class of individuals.
Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Phi Air Medical, LLC – 610 S.W.3d 839 – Jun 26, 2020
Supreme Court of Texas. TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, TASB Risk Management Fund, Transportation Insurance Company, Truck Insurance Exchange, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Valley Forge Insurance Company, et al., Petitioners, v. PHI AIR MEDICAL, LLC, Respondent No. 18-0216 | Argued February 25, 2020 | OPINION DELIVERED: June 26, 2020 Attorneys & […]
Mo-Vac Service Company, Inc. v. Escobedo – 603 S.W.3d 119 – Jun 12, 2020
Supreme Court of Texas. MO-VAC SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner v. Primitivo ESCOBEDO, Individually, San Juanita Escobedo, Individually, and Martha Escobedo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Fabian Escobedo, Respondents No. 18-0852 | Argued February 26, 2020 | Opinion delivered: June 12, 2020 Attorneys & Firms J. Joseph Vale Jr., Mike Mills, Susan R. […]