Who's the employer?

In a recent case, a woman requested workers’ compensation benefits arising from an injury suffered while on the job with her alleged employer. A judge decided that she was not an employee at the time of the injury.

In this case, the plaintiff was using an app called “Handy” that helped connect cleaning professionals like her with customers seeking cleaning services. CAPP Electric Company, which was dissatisfied with its former cleaning company, was also using the app.

In April 2018, Handy matched the plaintiff and CAPP Electric. She visited the company to start cleaning. CAPP Electric’s president allegedly offered to hire her as a cleaner directly working with the company. She did not complete any paperwork to accept the employment offer.

The plaintiff, using a cart to carry cleaning supplies, began cleaning the men’s restroom at the company. She alleged that she fractured a rib and injured her hip when an employee pushed the cart, which led to a mop or broom handle striking her on the side and pushing her into a cabinet.

The plaintiff filed a claim seeking workers’ compensation benefits from Texas Mutual Insurance Company, CAPP Electric’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier at the time. She alleged that CAPP Electric was her employer.

Read more: Is an intern an employee for workers’ compensation purposes?

Texas Mutual, alleging that CAPP Electric did not employ the plaintiff, denied the claim. An administrative law judge issued an order making the following findings:

• Texas Mutual was not liable to the plaintiff for workers’ compensation
• The testimony of CAPP Electric’s president, who denied that the company ever made an employment offer to the plaintiff, was more persuasive than her testimony
• CAPP Electric was not the plaintiff’s employer at the time of her injury
• Though the plaintiff was indeed injured, she did not suffer a compensable injury

The appeals panel of the Texas Department of Insurance’s Division of Workers’ Compensation found that the judge’s decision was final. It notified the plaintiff that, if she was unsatisfied with the judge’s decision, she should file a lawsuit with the district court no later than the 45th day after the date of the mailing of the appeals panel’s decision under the section 410.252 of the Labor Code.

Negligence petition denied

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit alleging negligence and seeking personal injury damages against CAPP Electric and Texas Mutual. The district court summarily denied this petition. The plaintiff then filed a judicial review petition against the Division.

Texas Mutual filed a summary judgment motion alleging that the plaintiff failed to timely file her judicial review petition. The Division argued that there was no jurisdiction because of its sovereign immunity from lawsuits. The trial court agreed with the arguments of Texas Mutual and the Division and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against them both.

The plaintiff appealed. She alleged that she was an employee of CAPP Electric at the time of her injury and that she suffered compensable injuries caused by the company’s negligence.

In the case of Eugenia Woodard v. Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation, CAPPS Electric Company and Texas Mutual Insurance Company, the Texas First Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

First, the appellate court ruled that the Division retained its sovereign immunity, which barred the plaintiff’s claims against it. The plaintiff cited no portion of the Labor Code or any other laws clearly and unambiguously waiving the Division’s immunity from a judicial review petition under Chapter 410 of the Labor Code, the appellate court said.

Second, the appellate court held that the Division was not a proper defendant to the plaintiff’s judicial review petition, given that the parties to a dispute resolution process under the Workers’ Compensation Act were generally the injured worker and the employer’s insurance company.

Third, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff failed to timely file her judicial review petition. The plaintiff had to file the petition with the district court by Dec. 21, 2021. Instead, she filed her petition on Mar. 16, 2022, almost three months after the deadline.