NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
The Dallas Court of Appeals has denied rehearing of a decision that we first mentioned in our
August newsletter. The decision explains that the “continuous coverage rule” is not exactly what the
name implies. The court held that a Texas-based worker was not covered when killed while on a
business trip to New York City.
Ronald Davis worked in Texas but had a business meeting in New York scheduled for a Monday.
He flew to New York on the previous Saturday and checked into a hotel. The next day, Sunday, he
was crossing a street near Central Park at 10:30 a.m. when he was hit by a bicyclist and killed. He
was 10 blocks away from his hotel. No one knows where he had been or where he was going.
Mr. Davis’ family argued that he was covered under the continuous coverage rule. Under that rule,
an employee whose work entails travel away from the employer’s premises is in the course of his
employment when the injury has its origin in a risk created by the necessity of sleeping or eating
away from home, except when a distinct departure on a personal errand is shown.
The Division of Workers’ Compensation found the injury to be non-compensable, so the Davis
family had the burden of proof on judicial review. Although there was no evidence that Mr. Davis
was on a personal errand at the time of the accident, the court found the injury to be noncompensable.
It reasoned that the Davis family had the burden of showing that Mr. Davis wasnot
on a personal errand or mission at the time of the accident and, because they could make no such
showing, they could not meet their burden of proof.
Davis v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, ___ S. W.3d ___, 2014 WL 3705130 (Tex. App. –