City of Bellaire and Rosa Larson v. Elbert Johnson, 400 S.W.3d 922

Texas Labor Code makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy for covered employees.
In Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados, the Court held employees cannot defeat exclusivity by arguing lack of policy coverage, to avoid splitting the workforce.
Magnum Staffing provided Johnson to the City and paid him based on hours reported to the City.
The City controlled Johnson’s work schedule, assignments, and supervision; Magnum had no oversight role.
The City was required to provide workers’ compensation coverage; Johnson was within that coverage under the interlocal arrangement.
Johnson’s arm injury occurred while Johnson worked on a City vehicle driven by a City employee; Johnson sued the City and Larson; the City and Larson asserted immunity and the exclusive remedy defense.
The trial court dismissed; the court of appeals reversed, questioning whether Johnson was actually covered under the City’s policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson falls under the exclusive-remedy bar.	Johnson argues not conclusively covered; dispute over coverage exists.	City asserts Johnson is covered as a matter of law via the interlocal agreement.	Yes; Johnson is covered; exclusivity applies.
Whether the City’s immunity is waived by the exclusive remedy rule.	Immunity may apply if not actually covered.	Exclusivity bars suit even if coverage is argued.	Immunity waived by exclusivity when covered.
Whether Johnson was a “paid employee” under Section 504.011(3).	Johnson argues he was paid by Magnum, not the City.	Evidence shows City paid Johnson through Magnum based on hours reported.	Johnson was a paid employee under the interlocal agreement.
Whether Johnson’s injury is within the City’s workers’ compensation coverage.	Unclear if City’s policy extended to Johnson.	Interlocal agreement provides statutorily required coverage.	Yes; Johnson is within the City’s coverage.

Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados, 358 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2012) (exclusivity applies regardless of precise policy terms to avoid workforce-splitting)
Limestone Prods. Distrib. Inc. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2002) (control over the progress, details, and methods determines employee status)
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (subject-matter jurisdiction and exclusive remedy often raised via plea to the jurisdiction)
Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. 1980) (state immunity retained; workers’ comp provides an alternate remedy)
Lyons v. Texas A&M Univ., 545 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. Civ. App.–Hou. [14th Dist.] 1976) (state immunity and exclusive remedy interplay)