712 S.W.3d 88
Tex.2025Background
- Sharon Dunn, an emergency department nurse at East Texas Medical Center Athens (ETMC Athens), was injured when a non-employee EMT pushed a stretcher into her.
- Dunn's initial suit against the EMT and his employer was dismissed for failure to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act.
- Dunn then sued ETMC Athens for negligence; after dismissal of the EMT-related claims, ETMC Athens moved to designate the EMT and his employer as responsible third parties under the Texas proportionate-responsibility statute.
- Dunn did not initially object and the trial court granted the designation; eleven months later, Dunn moved to strike the designation, arguing that the proportionate-responsibility statute did not apply.
- The trial court granted Dunn's motion to strike; ETMC Athens sought mandamus relief, which was denied by the court of appeals; ETMC Athens then petitioned the Texas Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Proportionate-Responsibility Statute | The statute does not apply because suit is an action to collect workers’ compensation benefits. | Negligence claim against nonsubscriber is not an action for workers’ comp benefits, so statute applies. | Statute applies to nonsubscriber negligence claims. |
| Whether Nonsubscribers Can Designate Responsible Third Parties | Workers’ Compensation Act prohibits such designations/defenses. | Act only prohibits certain defenses based on employee fault, not designations of other parties. | Act does not bar designation of responsible third parties. |
| Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Designation | No sufficient evidence (especially without expert testimony) against EMT and employer. | Record contains evidence (from Dunn and witnesses) raising a fact issue of EMT/employer responsibility. | Sufficient evidence supports designation – fact issue exists. |
| Adequacy of Remedy by Appeal | No specific argument (court addressed sua sponte). | No adequate remedy by appeal; error impacts right to a proper fault allocation. | No adequate appellate remedy; mandamus relief appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kroger Co. v. Keng, 23 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. 2000) (addressed applicability of comparative negligence and employee's rights against nonsubscribing employers)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (trial court abases discretion when failing to properly analyze or apply the law)
- Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 642 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. 2022) (exclusive remedy provision in workers’ compensation context)
- Excel Corp. v. Apodaca, 81 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. 2002) (negligence claims against nonsubscribers proceed as common-law claims)
- Mo-Vac Serv. Co. v. Escobedo, 603 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. 2020) (statutory remedy substitutes for common law in subscriber context)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment standard for evidentiary sufficiency)