Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. Espinoza v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.

    622 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2010)   Cited 18 times
    In Espinoza, the plaintiff brought a negligence claim under Texas law against her employer Cargill after suffering a hand injury while operating a company saw.

    We will therefore not draw Espinoza's suggested distinction between "policy" and "benefits." Espinoza relies on Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., in which a Texas Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer because the employer failed to provide evidence that it covered its employees under a Workers' Compensation policy. 183 S.W.3d 469, 473 (Tex.App. — Eastland 2005, no pet.). In that case, a temporary employee sued his staffing company and his temporary employer, Martin Resources, Inc., for negligence, after injuring his hand.

  2. Port Elevator-Brownsville v. Casados

    314 S.W.3d 529 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    See TEX. LABOR CODE ANN. § 408.001(a).Funes v. Eldridge Elee. Co., 270 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.); Morales v. Martin Res., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 469, 471 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005, no pet.); Western Steel Co., Inc., 169 S.W.3d at 349.See Morales, 183 S.W.3d at 471.

  3. Tobias v. Davidson Plywood

    241 F.R.D. 590 (E.D. Tex. 2007)   Cited 5 times
    In Tobias v. Davidson, 241 F.R.D. 590 (E.D. Tex. 2007), in fashioning an evidentiary sanction for the failure to make a required disclosure under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) the court considered the importance of the evidence, prejudice, the possibility of curing prejudice through a continuance, and the party's explanation for the failure to comply with the disclosure requirements.

    (" Because an employer's status as a subscriber to workers' compensation is an affirmative defense, the duty is on the employer/defendant-not the employee/plaintiff-to plead and prove such facts." ); Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 469, 471 (Tex.App.Eastland 2005, no pet.); Pierce v. Holiday, 155 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex.App.Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Southeast Texas Ind. v. Helmerich & Payne, 70 S.W.3d 181 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, no pet.); Quanaim v. Frasco Restaurant & Catering, 17 S.W.3d 30, 43-44 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); Brown v. Hopkins, 921 S.W.2d 306, 318 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1996, no writ); Long v. Turner, 871 S.W.2d 220, 225 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1993, writ denied).           To establish this defense, a defendant must show: (1) it was the plaintiff's employer within the meaning of the TWCA; and (2) the defendant was covered by a workers' compensation insurance policy at the time of the accident.

  4. Olivares v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co.

    No. 05-22-00057-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 14, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    When name confusion muddies the waters in this fashion, this may give rise to factual questions that are fit for resolution by juries rather than appellate jurists. Cf. Morales v. Martin Res., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 469, 473 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2005, no pet.) (op. on reh'g) (holding that name discrepancies created fact issue as to who held a workers' compensation policy; Martin Resources, Inc. of Odessa asserted that it was covered, but the policy was issued to Martin Resources Management Corporation, and

  5. Balderas v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

    No. 14-20-00262-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 28, 2022)   Cited 1 times
    Explaining TWCA "provides that the recovery of workers' compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy for a legal beneficiary of an employee covered by workers' compensation insurance for a work-related death or injury."

    In support of his argument, Bertoldo points to an opinion from the Eastland court of appeals. See Morales v. Martin Res., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 469, 472 (Tex. App.- Eastland 2005, no pet.). In Morales, the injured worker was an employee of Select Professional Staffing and was at the same time placed as a temporary employee with Martin Resources, Inc., located in Odessa, Texas.

  6. Robles v. Mount Franklin Food, L.L.C.

    591 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. App. 2019)   Cited 10 times
    Noting attempt by legislature to simplify entitlement to exclusive remedy provision with respect to temporary employment services by 2013 amendments to section 93.004

    Reveles v. OEP Holdings, LLC , 574 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2018, no pet.) ("The exclusive remedy provision is an affirmative defense that protects employers from certain common-law claims of their employees including negligence claims."); Hand & Wrist Ctr. of Houston, P.A. v. SGS Control Services, Inc. , 409 S.W.3d 743, 753 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) ; Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc. , 199 S.W.3d 614, 617 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2006, no pet.) ; Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc. , 183 S.W.3d 469, 471 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2005, no pet.) ; Pierce v. Holiday , 155 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2005, no pet.) ; see alsoPort Elevator-Brownsville v. Casados , 358 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Tex. 2012) ("Port Elevator raised the affirmative defense that workers' compensation was the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy."). Affirmative defenses should be raised through a motion for summary judgment or proven at trial.

  7. Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Servs., Inc.

    499 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. App. 2016)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that appellee did not preserve for appellate review summary-judgment grounds presented to but not ruled on by the trial court because appellee did not present these grounds by a cross-point on appeal

    An employee is covered by workers' compensation insurance if his employer has an approved insurance policy covering the payment of workers' compensation benefits to its employees. Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 469, 471 (Tex.App.–Eastland 2005, no pet.) (citing Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 401.0011(44)(A) (defining “workers' compensation insurance coverage” as “an approved insurance policy to secure the payment of compensation”)). An employee may also be covered by workers' compensation insurance—and therefore subject to the exclusive remedy provision of the TWCA—if he enters employment with a professional employment organization that has elected to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage and has a professional services agreement with a client for whom the employee actually works.

  8. Calhoun v. Hall Mwng. Co.

    No. 02-09-00459-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 13, 2011)

    Moreover, the exclusive remedy provision of the TWCA is an affirmative defense. Morales v. Martin Res., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 469, 471 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2005, no pet.). Calhoun argues on appeal that Appellee did not prove in the trial court that it was his employer.

  9. Briggs v. Toyota Manu. of Texas

    337 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 42 times
    Requiring a movant to first establish its right to summary judgment as a matter of law

    The exclusive remedies provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act ("TWCA") is an affirmative defense. Funes v. Eldridge Elec. Co., 270 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.); Morales v. Martin Res., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 469, 471 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005, no pet.). An affirmative defense should be raised through a motion for summary judgment or proven at trial.

  10. Hodges v. Texas TST, Inc.

    303 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that because Hodges was company's employee and because company produced evidence that it had workers' compensation insurance coverage, a claim for benefits was Hodges's exclusive remedy against company

    There are no exclusions for borrowed servants. Hodges argues that TST's evidence is insufficient to establish that he was covered, and he points to this court's decision in Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 469 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005, no pet.). In that case, we recognized that an employee is covered by workers' compensation insurance if his employer possesses an approved insurance policy covering the payment of workers' compensation benefits to its employees.