Wendell H. Taylor v. Lubbock Regional MHMR, and JI Texas Risk Management Fund, 07-13-00381-CV

Background

In Feb. 2009 Taylor, while working for Lubbock Regional MHMR (MHMR), suffered a compensable workplace injury; MHMR is self‑insured under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.
Taylor later claimed the compensable injury extended to several conditions (chronic pain, facet arthrosis, disc pathology, fibromyalgia, hyperreflexive, sleep problems, osteoporosis); an administrative contested‑case hearing rejected those extension claims and an appeals panel adopted that result.
Taylor sued MHMR, JI Specialty Services (a third‑party administrator), Texas Council Risk Management Fund, and the Division asserting statutory and common‑law tort claims; most defendants obtained pleas to the jurisdiction which were affirmed on interlocutory appeal except bad‑faith claims against Specialty Services, which were remanded.
After remand, Specialty Services and MHMR filed no‑evidence summary judgment motions. Taylor submitted an 18‑page “Exhibit List” eight days before the hearing; the trial court sustained defendants’ evidentiary objections, struck the material, and granted summary judgment disposing of all claims.
On appeal the court considered procedural defects in Taylor’s briefing but addressed the merits de novo; the appellate record contained no admissible evidence controverting the defendants’ no‑evidence motions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taylor presented competent summary‑judgment evidence defeating Specialty Services’ no‑evidence motion on his bad‑faith/contract/tort claim	Taylor relied on his Exhibit List and attached documents to show a contractual/ tort duty and bad faith by Specialty Services	Specialty Services argued Taylor had no evidence of any contractual relationship or of breach of any tort duty and that a bad‑faith claim against a workers’ comp administrator is unavailable	Held for Specialty Services: Taylor produced no admissible evidence on the challenged elements; summary judgment proper
Whether Taylor produced competent evidence of causation to show his compensable injury extended to the listed conditions against MHMR	Taylor contended his injury extended to the stated conditions (citing materials in his exhibits)	MHMR argued Taylor lacked competent expert proof of the existence of each condition and causation linking them to the work injury (a required element)	Held for MHMR: no competent evidence of causation in the summary‑judgment record; summary judgment proper
Whether Taylor waived appellate review of evidentiary rulings and/or issues by deficient briefing	Taylor argued against the summary judgment ruling generally	Defendants argued his brief was deficient and he failed to challenge trial court evidentiary rulings (so struck evidence could not be considered)	Held: appellate court addressed merits but noted Taylor did not assign error to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings; struck evidence could not be considered, and he failed to raise evidence to rebut no‑evidence motions

Key Cases Cited

Quanaim v. Frasco Rest. & Catering, 17 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. App. 2000) (motions/responses alone are not competent summary‑judgment proof)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (summary‑judgment review and drawing reasonable inferences for nonmovant)
Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013) (de novo review of summary judgment)
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (more than a scintilla standard to defeat no‑evidence motion)
Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (definition of more than a scintilla)
Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2012) (no common‑law bad‑faith claim against workers’ compensation carrier)
In re E.A.F., 424 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App. 2014) (appellate courts may not reverse for unraised reasons)