Important Recent Case Law for Texas

Monday, March 3, 2014 | 0

NEW! Mallory v. Arctic Pipe Inspection Co., 01-12-00979-CV and 01-13-00563-CV, (02/20/2014): A Texas attorney who entered into an agreement with another attorney to perform work on a lawsuit for an injured worker in exchange for a portion of any settlement the worker might receive could not state a viable claim against the payors of the settlement, as a matter of law, for having not included him in the settlement payout. 

NEW! City of Houston v. Rhule, No. 12-0721, (02/15/2014): The Texas Supreme Court is standing by its decision to vacate a jury's $127,500 award in favor of an injured firefighter based on his employer' breach of a settlement agreement that had resolved his workers' comp claim from an injury some 16 years prior.

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters, 01-12-00216-CV, (02/04/2014): The workers' compensation exclusive remedy does not apply to health care providers, the 1st District Court of Appeals ruled. 

Seabright Insurance Co. v. Lopez, 04-12-00863-CV, (01/29/2014): A Texas appellate court ruled that a worker who was killed in a multi-vehicle wreck while traveling with two coworkers to a job site, some 450 miles from his home, was in the course and scope of his employment at the time.

Holmes v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 05-11-01579-CV, (01/22/2014): A worker who obtained pre-authorization for his surgery could not obtain a judicial order compelling his employer's insurance carrier to pay for the surgery when there was a dispute about whether the surgery had exceeded the scope of repairing his compensable injury, a Texas appellate court ruled.

Wiley v. American Zurich Insurance Co., 01-13-00345-CV, (01/16/2014): The filing of a federal civil rights lawsuit against an insurance carrier based on its denial of death benefits to an alleged beneficiary of a dead worker did not extend the time the alleged beneficiary had to appeal the administrative determination that he was not, in fact, a qualifying beneficiary of the worker.

Cervantes v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 13-0759, (1/03/2014): The Texas Supreme Court denied review to a 4th Court of Appeals' decision finding a designated doctor's medical report confirming a claimant's maximum medical improvement date and impairment rating complied with Division of Workers' Compensation rules.

Pena v. County of Starr, 04-12-00462-CV, (12/18/2013): A Texas worker is getting a second chance to prove his employer violated the Family Medical Leave Act by firing him after he wound up missing several more weeks of work than he had anticipated as being necessary after a workplace injury and an unrelated surgery.

Melendez v. Houston Independent School District, 14-12-00946-CV, (12/05/2013): A worker could not assert a viable claim for unlawful discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act based on the fact that she was allegedly forced to resign her position because of her addiction to opiate medication.

Perez v. Smart Corp., 04-12-00712-CV, (11/27/2013): A Texas appellate court ruled that a painter who fell from a five-story building, breaking his back, was not entitled to damages for his injury. Even if the jury had not been allowed to consider an OSHA report that should have been inadmissible − and was inaccurate − the court said that ample evidence supported a finding that the painter was primarily to blame for his mishap.