562 S.W.3d 69
Tex. App.2018Background
- Berrelez, a housekeeper for Mesquite Logistics at Mesquite Lodge, was sexually assaulted by a guest (Mascorro); Mascorro pled guilty to indecent exposure.
- Mesquite Logistics (a workers’ comp subscriber) filed an Employer’s First Report of Injury with the DWC and its carrier reserved $2,000 for mental-trauma treatment; Berrelez resigned and never contacted the carrier.
- Berrelez sued Mesquite Logistics (premises liability and gross negligence), alleging she was not acting in the course and scope of employment and that the assault was motivated by the attacker’s personal reasons.
- Mesquite moved to dismiss under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy rule, arguing Berrelez failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC).
- The trial court granted the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Berrelez appealed claiming her claim fell under the Act’s personal-animosity exception, excusing exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims invoking §406.032(1)(C) (personal animosity exception) must first exhaust DWC remedies | Berrelez: personal-animosity exception puts assault outside course/scope, so suit may proceed without DWC exhaustion | Mesquite: course/scope and compensability are for DWC to decide first; exhaustion required | The court held exhaustion is required; DWC has initial exclusive jurisdiction to determine course/scope and applicability of exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. 2013) (standard: subject-matter jurisdiction questions reviewed de novo)
- Clint Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Marquez, 487 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. 2016) (agencies may have exclusive initial authority; exhaustion required)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (pleading standards for jurisdictional challenges)
- Henry v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 70 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. 2002) (DWC must determine compensability before courts may award damages)
- Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 2001) (compensability decisions vested in DWC)
- Medina v. Herrera, 927 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. 1996) (§406.032 exceptions aid course/scope analysis but do not remove DWC jurisdiction)
- Essenburg v. Dallas Cnty., 988 S.W.2d 188 (Tex. 1998) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies may deprive courts of jurisdiction)
- McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 (1969) (policy reasons supporting administrative exhaustion to develop record and apply agency expertise)