Court Opinion

ID: 9945642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 07:12:03.953323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:35.245321
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 21, 2024

                                       In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00086-CV

            SANTA TREVINO AND SESAR TREVINO, Appellants
                               V.
              JALAPENO TREE OPERATING, LLC, Appellee

                On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04245

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                         Opinion by Justice Breedlove
      This case arises out of a suit for personal injuries sustained by appellant Santa

Trevino while working at the Gun Barrel City Jalapeno Tree location. The trial court

granted Jalapeno Tree’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Texas Labor

Code § 408.001 barred the Trevinos’ suit because Jalapeno Tree was a workers’

compensation subscriber. The Trevinos appeal, complaining the trial court erred in

granting Jalapeno Tree’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the trial court’s

judgment.
                               I.     BACKGROUND

      On May 15, 2020, Santa Trevino slipped, fell, and hit her head at her job at

the Gun Barrel City location of the Jalapeno Tree restaurant owned by her employer,

Jalapeno Tree Operating, LLC. Santa allegedly sustained a concussive traumatic

brain injury, a broken elbow, a back injury, a pelvic injury, and a neck injury.

Jalapeno Tree reported Santa’s injury to its insurer, Texas Mutual, who set up a

claim, investigated the incident, and offered temporary income benefits and medical

benefits to Santa, which she accepted. Santa’s treating doctor eventually released her

to return to light-duty work, at which time Texas Mutual ceased paying temporary

income benefits.

      Santa and her husband, Sesar, then retained counsel and claimed the right to

additional benefits.   A state-appointed designated doctor evaluated Santa and

determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement in July 2020 with

a 1% permanent impairment rating. Texas Mutual paid her impairment income

benefits based on the 1% rating. The Trevinos then asserted claims for the same

work-related injury against Jalapeno Tree for negligence, premises liability, and loss

of consortium. In its answer, Jalapeno Tree pleaded the “exclusive remedy” defense

under the Workers’ Compensation Act, asserting that the Trevinos’ sole remedy

against Jalapeno Tree is the recovery of workers’ compensation. See TEX. LAB.

CODE ANN. § 408.001(a). Jalapeno Tree moved for summary judgment on the

exclusive-remedy provision as well as on a quasi-estoppel theory. In response, the

                                         –2–
Trevinos argued that Jalapeno Tree, despite being listed on the Texas Mutual policy

as an additional named insured, was not covered by workers’ compensation

insurance.

      On October 17, 2022, the trial court granted Jalapeno Tree’s motion for

summary judgment. The Trevinos filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied by

operation of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b. The Trevinos then appealed the trial

court’s judgment on January 24, 2023. In one issue, the Trevinos complain that the

trial court erred in granting Jalapeno Tree’s motion for summary judgment. In

response, Jalapeno Tree argues that it conclusively proved its exclusive-remedy

defense, and therefore, summary judgment was proper.

                       II.   STANDARD OF REVIEW

      We review a summary judgment de novo. Trial v. Dragon, 593 S.W.3d 313,

316 (Tex. 2019). To prevail, a defendant moving for traditional summary judgment

must either negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s theory of recovery or plead

and conclusively prove each element of an affirmative defense. TEX. R. CIV. P.

166a(c); Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996). We note that whether

the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation act applies is an

affirmative defense. See Exxon Corp. v. Perez, 842 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tex. 1992);

Vega v. Silva, 223 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).

                                         –3–
                                  III.   DISCUSSION

      Recovery of workers’ compensation benefits “is the exclusive remedy of an

employee covered by workers’ compensation insurance coverage or a legal

beneficiary against the employer…for the death of or a work-related injury sustained

by the employee.” TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 408.001(a). To prove the exclusive-

remedy affirmative defense, a defendant must show that (1) it is the plaintiff’s

employer; (2) it subscribes to (or is covered by) workers’ compensation insurance;

and (3) the injury is work-related. Port Elevator-Brownsville v. Casados, 358

S.W.3d 238, 243 (Tex. 2012). The Trevinos dispute only the second element,

arguing that evidence exists in the record sufficient to raise an issue of material fact

as to whether Jalapeno Tree was covered by workers’ compensation insurance.

      The Trevinos’ primary argument on appeal is that Golden Operating

Corporation, and not Jalapeno Tree, was listed as the named insured on the policy

as well as on Texas Mutual’s claim file as Santa’s employer. While the Trevinos are

correct that Golden Operating Company is the named insured, the record also shows

that Jalapeno Tree is listed on Golden Operating Corporation’s policy as an

additional insured. The policy listing Jalapeno Tree as an additional insured is

sufficient summary judgment proof of workers’ compensation coverage. See, e.g.,

Martinez v. H.B. Zachry Co., 976 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

1998, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment when employer offered the

                                          –4–
Information Page of a policy and an affidavit from the employer’s claim manager

swearing that the copy was true and correct).

       The Trevinos also argue that because the Texas Department of Insurance was

unable to locate proof of workers’ compensation documentation upon request that a

fact question exists regarding coverage. However, the TDI letter, as shown in Exhibit

1 of the Trevinos’ summary judgment response, does not state that Jalapeno Tree

was not covered, only that no documentation could be found. This letter, therefore,

does not contradict the summary judgment evidence offered by Jalapeno Tree.

       The record contains both a workers’ compensation policy covering Jalapeno

Tree’s employees and affidavits from the insurance company regarding coverage,

both of which conclusively establish the existence of coverage. See id. Therefore,

the trial court did not err in granting Jalapeno Tree’s motion for summary judgment

on the basis of the exclusive-remedy defense.1 We overrule the Trevinos’ sole issue

on appeal.

                                     IV.    CONCLUSION

       We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                  /Maricela Breedlove/
230086f.p05                                       MARICELA BREEDLOVE
                                                  JUSTICE

   1
     Because we find that summary judgment was proper on Jalapeno Tree’s exclusive remedy defense,
we do not address its quasi-estoppel defense. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
                                              –5–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

SANTA TREVINO AND SESAR                        On Appeal from the 68th Judicial
TREVINO, Appellants                            District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                               Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04245.
No. 05-23-00086-CV           V.                Opinion delivered by Justice
                                               Breedlove. Justices Carlyle and
JALAPENO TREE OPERATING,                       Goldstein participating.
LLC, Appellee

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

      It is ORDERED that appellee JALAPENO TREE OPERATING, LLC
recover its costs of this appeal from appellants SANTA TREVINO AND SESAR
TREVINO.

Judgment entered this 21st day of February, 2024.

                                         –6–