Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 28, 2012; Texas; State Appellate Court
Willie Addison appeals a trial court's summary judgment favoring Diversified Healthcare/Dallas, L.L.C., operating as Brookhaven Nursing Center, in his retaliatory discharge lawsuit. Addison asserts that his evidence indicating Brookhaven appeared to be a workers’ compensation subscriber is sufficient to support his claim under section 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code. However, as a non-subscriber, Brookhaven cannot be held liable under this section, which is the sole basis for Addison's claim.
Addison, employed as a cook at Brookhaven, sustained a back injury while lifting food items. After notifying his supervisor, Diana Williams, of his injury, he was instructed to leave the premises. Despite seeking assistance from a nurse and waiting to speak with the facility administrator, he was ultimately terminated by Brookhaven the same day without any benefits related to his injury.
In its motion for summary judgment, Brookhaven argued it does not carry state-approved workers’ compensation insurance and therefore is not subject to retaliatory discharge claims under the Act. The trial court granted this motion, leading to Addison's appeal. The appellate review of the summary judgment is conducted de novo, emphasizing whether Brookhaven demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law without any genuine material fact disputes. The court reviews the evidence favorably for Addison, aiming to resolve any doubts in his favor.
Addison filed a lawsuit against Brookhaven under section 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code, which pertains to employee compensation and insurance for workplace injuries. The statute defines a "subscriber" as an employer who contracts for hire, employs individuals, and maintains workers' compensation insurance approved by the Texas Department of Insurance. While obtaining this insurance is generally optional, only employers who choose to do so are governed by the Act. Employers that opt out or terminate coverage must notify the Texas Department of Insurance using an approved form. The Act prohibits retaliatory discharge against employees who file claims, seek legal representation, or participate in administrative proceedings related to their claims, imposing liability on employers who violate this provision. However, only subscribing employers are subject to these prohibitions; non-subscribers are not liable for discharging employees for such actions. Addison contends that the trial court wrongly granted summary judgment, arguing he provided evidence that Brookhaven represented itself as a subscriber. The critical legal inquiry is whether Brookhaven qualifies as a subscriber, which is determined de novo. To establish subscriber status, an employer must demonstrate it had active workers' compensation insurance from an authorized provider at the time of the employee's injury. Conversely, an employer can prove it is not a subscriber by showing it lacked such insurance.
Brookhaven provided an affidavit from its Texas administrator and a notice filed with the Texas Department of Insurance indicating it does not carry workers’ compensation insurance, thereby confirming its non-subscriber status under the Act. Addison did not present any contradictory evidence. Addison claims Brookhaven can be sued for section 451.001 violations because it allegedly held itself out as a subscriber, citing a statement in Brookhaven’s employee handbook asserting that the company maintains workers’ compensation insurance for all employees. Brookhaven contends this refers to a benefits plan for job-related injuries, not a workers’ compensation plan governed by the Act. Even if Brookhaven did hold itself out as a subscriber, such representation does not support a section 451.001 claim against a non-subscriber, as only subscribing employers can face such claims according to precedent cases. Addison further argues that the fair notice requirements of the express-negligence doctrine should apply, referencing Texas Supreme Court cases. However, the ruling in Storage Processors, which involved a non-subscribing employer and negligence claims, does not support extending the fair notice requirements to section 451.001 claims. Therefore, the court declines to apply the express-negligence doctrine to Addison’s claim under the Act.
Addison argues that Brookhaven can be liable under section 451.001 as if it were a subscriber, referencing case law to support his position. However, the cited cases, Anderson-Berney Realty Co. v. Soria and Tigrett v. Heritage Building Co., establish that claims for breach of contract arise when an employer fails to provide promised benefits, which is not applicable in Addison's case as he has not filed a breach of contract claim. Consequently, these precedents do not support the extension of liability under the law as Addison suggests. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Brookhaven, confirming that there was sufficient evidence to show Brookhaven is not a subscriber under the Act, thus properly dismissing Addison's claims for retaliatory discharge. The judgment is upheld, with the evidence considered in the light most favorable to Addison.
