Texas Case Law Update

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 | 0

NEW! Pinkus v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 05-14-00892-CV, (11/05/2015): A business traveler's car accident while on his way to have dinner with his son was not within the course and scope of his employment, a Texas appellate court ruled.

NEW! Painter v. Amerimex Drilling, 08-14-00134-CV, (11/03/2015): The 8th District Court of Appeals ruled that the standard of proof necessary to place an employee within the course and scope of his employment for the purposes of vicarious liable is higher than the standard required under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act.

NEW! Harris County v. Gambichler, 14-14-00771-CV, (11/03/2015): A Texas appellate court ruled that a municipal employer's failure to appear in the proceedings for an injured worker's claim against a third-party tortfeasor did not warrant dismissal of the employer's claim for reimbursement of the benefits it had paid to the worker, with prejudice.

NEW! American Casualty Co. of Reading Pennsylvania v. Bushman, 04-14-00685-CV, (11/04/2015): A Texas appellate court is standing by its prior decision that a truck driver was within the course and scope of his employment when he died in a car accident while on his way to the company's dispatch office to train a new employee. 

NEW! Ballard v. Arch Insurance Co., 14-14-00647-CV, (10/29/2015): A Texas appellate court ruled that a worker who went blind after suffering an eye injury at work failed to prove it was the injury, and not his preexisting glaucoma, that caused his blindness.

Taylor v. Lubbock Regional MHMR, 07-13-00381-CV, (10/07/2015): A Texas appellate court ruled that an injured worker's failure to appeal a ruling excluding his exhibits from evidence was fatal to his appeal of an adverse grant of summary judgment since without the exhibits, there was no evidence to contest the defense motion for summary judgment.

Brock Services v. Solis, 13-15-00204-CV, (10/08/2015): A Texas appellate court ruled that an employer should have been allowed to compel its former employee to arbitrate his retaliatory termination claim.

In re Time Warner Cable Enterprises, 04-15-00539-CV, (10/07/2015): A Texas appellate court ruled that a worker who was terminated shortly after telling his supervisor he intended to file a comp claim was not entitled to compel the deposition of his supervisor in order to investigate whether he had any viable legal claims pertaining to his firing.

United Scaffolding v. Levine, 13-14-00377-CV, (09/01/2015): A Texas appellate court ruled that civil liability for a worker's injury in falling through a loose board in a scaffold had to come in the form of a negligence claim against the owner of the scaffold, not in a premises liability claim.

Hernandez v. W-S Industrial Services, 13-14-00404-CV, (08/31/2015): A Texas appellate court ruled that the employee of a temporary staffing company qualified as the borrowed employee of his employer's client and so his remedy for his injuries while working for the client had to lay in the workers' compensation system.