Hector Garza v. Zachry Construction Corporation, Zachry Industrial, Inc., Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez, 373 S.W.3d 715

Garza, an operator for DuPont, was injured at a DuPont plant in Ingleside, Texas in 2007 while Morales and Rodriguez, Zachry employees, assisted him with a railcar mover.
Zachry Construction Corp. was a subcontractor at the plant; Morales and Rodriguez were Zachry employees; Garza sued Zachry and its employees for negligence, asserting Zachry’s vicarious liability.
DuPont provided workers’ compensation coverage to Zachry’s employees under a contract and General Conditions that defined employment status and insurance responsibilities.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Garza’s common-law claims were barred by the exclusive remedy under Labor Code § 408.001 and § 406.123 because DuPont purchased WC coverage for the subcontractor and its workers.
The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of the defendants; Garza appealed contending the exclusive remedy bar does not apply or, if it does, violates open courts.
The court analyzed whether DuPont’s contract made Zachry’s employees “deemed” employees of DuPont for WC purposes and thus shielded by the exclusive remedy, and whether application of § 406.123 to this arrangement comports with the open courts guarantee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusive remedy bar applies to preclude claims	Garza argues Zachry employees were not DuPont's deemed employees so §408.001 cannot bar his claims.	Morales and Rodriguez, as Zachry employees, are deemed DuPont employees under §406.123, so exclusive remedy applies.	Yes; Morales and Rodriguez were deemed employees, so exclusive remedy bars Garza's claims.
Whether application of §406.123 to permit the bar violates open courts	Garza contends the open courts clause is violated because he receives no quid pro quo from Zachry’s separate WC policy.	Defendants contend the Act’s quid pro quo and overall remedial scheme are adequate substitutes; open courts not violated.	No; the open courts guarantee not violated; the Act provides adequate substitute remedies and broad policy.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (premises owner as general contractor under §406.123; broad immunity for deemed/employer status)
HCBeck, Ltd. v. Rice, 284 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. 2009) (interpretation of 406.123(e) as deemed employer status; purpose to extend WC protections)
Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Ltd., 135 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 2004) (barring cross-subcontractor claims; limits of deemed employment concept)
Funes v. Eldridge Elec. Co., Ltd., 270 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (broad application of exclusive remedy to multiple subcontractor tiers)
Razor Enterprises, Inc. v. Razor Enters., 70 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. 2003) (dual quid pro quo; employee surrender of common-law rights; employer premium structure)
Garcia v. Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 893 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. 1995) (open courts analysis; adequacy of substitutes under WC Act)
Williams v. Razor Enters., Inc., 70 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002) (adequacy of remedies under WC Act as substitute for common-law actions)
Navarette v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308 (Tex. 1986) (liberal construction in favor of WC coverage)