State News : Texas

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.


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.


Texas

STONE LOUGHLIN & SWANSON, LLP

  512-343-1385


The Court didn't fall for his argument


A worker in Austin, Texas lost his bid to carve out an exception to the exclusive remedy of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act on the ground that, at the time of his injury, he was performing duties outside of the course and scope of his employment. 

Melvin Gonzalez worked as a car detailer and porter for Dynamic Motors, a used car dealership and service garage whose advertising catchphrase is “Don’t Panic. GO DYNAMIC!” The service manager asked him to help with repairs on the roof, and while doing so Gonzalez stepped through a skylight and fell 20 feet to the concrete floor below. 

Dynamic filed a report of injury with its workers’ compensation insurance carrier and Gonzalez accepted workers’ compensation insurance benefits. He then sued Dynamic, alleging that the company was negligent in failing to provide fall protection. 

Dynamic asserted the affirmative defense that workers’ compensation insurance benefits were Gonzalez’ exclusive remedy, and the trial court agreed. On appeal, Gonzalez argued that because roof repairs are not part of Dynamic’s business, and because he was injured while performing such repairs, he was not engaged in the usual course and scope of Dynamic’s business and was, therefore, not an “employee,” as that term is defined by the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act, at the time of the injury. The Austin court of appeals disagreed and said that the Act does not contemplate a “task-by-task” approach to the issue of whether a worker is injured in the course and scope of employment. 

You can read the decision here.

Copyright 2023, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP