Important Recent Texas Case Law

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 | 0

NEW! Garriga v. ACE American Insurance Co., 11-08-00300-CV, (07/01/2010): A workers' compensation carrier's subrogation lien against a wrongful settlement is limited to the amount of the settlement, a Texas appellate court ruled after granting a petition for rehearing.

NEW! SORM v. Ramirez, 04-09-00541-CV, (06/29/2010): A medical expert's report was unreliable because it contained contradictions and considered conditions barred by the Texas Administrative Code.

Phillips v. American Elastomer Products, 14-09-00164-CV, (06/17/2010): A staffing firm worker failed to show that an employer's actions, even if reckless, amounted to an intentional tort that waived exclusive remedy.

In Re: Dallas National Insurance Co., 13-09-00674-CV, (06/17/2010): A trial court has abused its discretion by refusing to rule on a carrier's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss that were filed three years ago.

Zenith Insurance Co. v. Ayala, 09-0292, (06/11/2010): A carrier has up to 45-days after receiving a complete medical bill to dispute the extent of a worker's injury.

Port Elevator-Brownsville v. Casados, et al., 13-08-00150-CV, (05/28/2010): We hold that the summary judgment evidence conclusively established that Casados was not a covered employee under Port Elevator's workers' compensation insurance policy.

In Re: International Marine, 13-10-00195-CV, (05/25/2010): An employer failed to show why it was entitled to mandamus relief from a trial court's decision not to strike 16 workers' motions to intervene in a Jones Act suit.

El Paso Field Services Management v. Lopez, 01-07-00999-CV, (05/27/2010): An injured worker was not the borrowed employee of a pipeline owner.

Omoruyi v. Grocers Supply Co., Inc., 14-09-00151-CV, (05/20/2010): An arbitration agreement between an injured worker and his employer was in compliance with public policy.

Langston v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, 09-09-00293-CV, (05/20/2010): A trial court should not have granted an insurer summary judgment because genuine factual questions still existed about whether the injured worker was incapable of working.