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 Appeals Court in El Paso held that the student worker provision required upward adjustment of the student’s calculated average weekly wages, but the statute capping benefits for UT System part-time employees capped his benefits at 60% of the adjusted average weekly wage. UT argued that the student worker wage adjustment provision in Texas Labor Code §408.044 did not apply because §503.021(b) provisions applicable to part-time employees of the UT System cap any benefits recovery at 60%. The court found that the two provisions were not in conflict, noting that Chapter 503 explicitly incorporated by reference nearly all provisions of Chapter 408, including the student worker adjustment provision. Ferrell v. The University of Texas System, No. 08-17-000065-CV, 2019 WL 2148089 (Tex. App.—El Paso, May 17, 2019).
The Appeals Court in Beaumont held that an employer, AmeriGas, was covered by a workers’ compensation policy, and therefore, entitled to assert the exclusive-remedies defense. The injured workers sued AmeriGas for damages sustained in a work-site explosion. AmeriGas asserted a general denial and the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The injured workers argued that AmeriGas did not provide workers’ compensation insurance, noting that the insurance policy did not specifically list AmeriGas Propane, L.P. in the policy. AmeriGas argued that it was due to an administrative error that its name was not included in the policy. It provided an endorsement naming AmeriGas as a named insured under the policy as well as evidence showing that it paid premiums and that its payroll and employment information was used in determining the policy price. Further, AmeriGas provided evidence that the policy paid workers’ compensation benefits to an employee who was injured in the explosion. The court found that AmeriGas provided sufficient evidence to reflect that the parties’ true agreement was to cover AmeriGas as an insured, but that due to a mutual mistake, the policy document did not reflect the parties’ true intent. Therefore, AmeriGas was entitled to the exclusive-remedies defense provided under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. AmeriGas Propane, L.P. v. Aboytes-Muñiz, No. 09-18-00122-CV, 2019 WL 2127750 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, May 16, 2019) (memorandum opinion).
- Copyright 2019,Erin Shanley, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP.