law-exclusive-remedy defense | affirmative defense to negligence suit for workplace injury,
death | employer liability for injuries accident at the work place | exclusivity | statutory remedy
exclusive of common law relief | workers compensation litigation | workplace injury and death
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY DEFENSE IN WORKPLACE INJURY
(WORKERS COMP) CASES AND OTHER TYPES OF CASES
RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
EMPLOYER/PREMISES OWNER LIABILITY FOR WORKPLACE INJURY &
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers. No. 05-0272 (Tex. 2009)(Substitute opinion by Green)
(premises owner as general contractor for workers compensation exclusive remedy purposes,
industrial plants, industrial accidents, refinery explosion)
ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC. v. JOHN SUMMERS; from Jefferson County; 9th district (09-04-
00152-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-30-04)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Wainwright and Justice
Brister joined, and in Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII and IX of which Justice Hecht joined, and in
Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and IX of which Justice Johnson joined, and in Parts I, II, III, VI, VII, and
IX of which Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a concurring opinion of the Court.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice
RETALIATION CLAIMS IN EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT
City of Waco, Texas v. Lopez, No. 06-0089 (Tex. July 11, 2008)(Opinion by Justice Wainwright)
(Whistleblower Act, TCHRA, anti-discrimination statute as exclusive remedy for retaliation claim
failure to satisfy prerequisites for suit by not filing with agency first)
CITY OF WACO, TEXAS v. ROBERT LOPEZ; from Limestone County; 10th district (10-04-
00085-CV, 183 SW3d 825, 12-14-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case.
Justice Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court.
CASES FROM THE TEXAS COURTS OF APPEALS
(PET. DENIED BY TEX. SUP. CT)
GUILLERMINA MOSQUEDA v. G&H DIVERSIFIED MFG., L.P.; from Harris County; 14th district
(14-04-00183-CV, 223 S.W.3d 571, 01-31-07) [Dissenting opinion by Justice Edelman]
(workplace injury, workers compensation, exclusive remedy defense) In this case, G & H is
entitled to the exclusive remedy defense. Because Mosqueda was the borrowed employee of
G & H, she cannot maintain her common law claims against G & H. Therefore, even if we
concluded that the summary judgment should not have been granted, there is no basis for
recovery against the Kash defendants. See Aluminum Chemicals (Bolivia), Inc. v. Bechtel
Corp., 28 S.W.3d 64, 68 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (stating that, if there is no
finding of liability against subsidiary, plaintiff cannot recover against the parent under single
business enterprise, joint enterprise, or alter ego theories). Because there can be no
derivative recovery against the Kash defendants, and Mosqueda failed to obtain favorable jury
findings directly against the Kash defendants, we overrule Mosqueda's seventh issue.
OTHER COURT OF APPEALS CASES INVOLVING THE EXCLUSIVE
Lazo v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 14-06-00644-CV (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] May 7, 2009)
(Opinion by Justice Brown) (workers compensation act immunity, exclusive remedy defense,
Entergy holding applied)
we hold that ExxonMobil met its burden of establishing that it was a general
contractor and a statutory employer, entitled to the exclusive-remedy defense under the
statute. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §408.001 (Vernon 2006). Because we hold that
ExxonMobil met its burden of proof on the issues of whether it was a general contractor
and a statutory employer, we find no merit in Lazo’s first two issues.