Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc., 499 S.W.3d 48

Rodriguez was hired on Feb 18, 2011 and signed paperwork identifying him as an employee of TXWorks (a licensed PEO) assigned to Lockhart Contracting.
TXWorks’ employer-services agreement with Lockhart Contracting was administratively terminated on March 14, 2011; Lockhart entered a new PEO agreement with Prime Source effective March 15, 2011.
Rodriguez was injured on March 15 or 16, 2011 while working on a Lockhart jobsite. He filed accident forms with TXWorks and TMIC (the insurer), and TMIC paid nearly $52,000 in workers’ compensation benefits.
Lockhart moved for traditional summary judgment arguing the TWCA exclusive-remedy bar applied because Rodriguez was covered as a Prime Source employee (coemployment) or, alternatively, estopped by acceptance of benefits.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Lockhart on the exclusive-remedy ground; this appeal challenges that judgment. The appellate court reverses and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rodriguez was a Prime Source employee at time of injury	Rodriguez was not transferred and never completed Prime Source paperwork, so he remained a TXWorks employee	Lockhart: employees were "transferred" to Prime Source when TXWorks contract ended; Rodriguez was paid by Prime Source after the accident	There is more than a scintilla of evidence Rodriguez was not a Prime Source employee; summary judgment on that ground was improper
Whether Lockhart established compliance with Chapter 91 (PEO sharing/notice requirements)	Rodriguez argued the Prime Source agreement did not satisfy Chapter 91 sharing/notice requirements, undermining coverage	Lockhart contended the Prime Source agreement created coemployment and coverage under TWCA	Court did not decide on merits because fact issue on employment status made Chapter 91 compliance unnecessary to resolve on appeal
Whether acceptance-of-benefits (quasi‑estoppel) bars suit	Rodriguez: doctrine inapplicable / not decided below	Lockhart: Rodriguez accepted over $50k in WC benefits, so estopped from suing at common law	Court: acceptance-of-benefits is a separate equitable defense distinct from the statutory TWCA exclusive‑remedy; Lockhart did not preserve that ground on appeal, so court would not consider it

Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015) (standard of review for traditional summary judgment)
Port Elevator-Brownsville v. Casados, 358 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2012) (TWCA exclusive remedy and liberal construction in favor of coverage)
Tex. Workers’ Comp. Ins. Fund v. Del Indus., Inc., 35 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2000) (PEO/client coemployment and coverage under PEO policy)
Wingfoot Enterprises v. Alvarado, 111 S.W.3d 134 (Tex. 2003) (PEO policy can cover leased employees; both PEO and client may rely on exclusive remedy)
Rico v. Judson Lofts, Ltd., 404 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (exclusive remedy is an affirmative defense burdening movant)