Santa Trevino and Sesar Trevino v. Jalapeno Tree Operating, LLC ( 2024 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 21, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00086-CV
SANTA TREVINO AND SESAR TREVINO, Appellants
V.
JALAPENO TREE OPERATING, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04245
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Breedlove
This case arises out of a suit for personal injuries sustained by appellant Santa
Trevino while working at the Gun Barrel City Jalapeno Tree location. The trial court
granted Jalapeno Tree’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Texas Labor
Code § 408.001 barred the Trevinos’ suit because Jalapeno Tree was a workers’
compensation subscriber. The Trevinos appeal, complaining the trial court erred in
granting Jalapeno Tree’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2020, Santa Trevino slipped, fell, and hit her head at her job at
the Gun Barrel City location of the Jalapeno Tree restaurant owned by her employer,
Jalapeno Tree Operating, LLC. Santa allegedly sustained a concussive traumatic
brain injury, a broken elbow, a back injury, a pelvic injury, and a neck injury.
Jalapeno Tree reported Santa’s injury to its insurer, Texas Mutual, who set up a
claim, investigated the incident, and offered temporary income benefits and medical
benefits to Santa, which she accepted. Santa’s treating doctor eventually released her
to return to light-duty work, at which time Texas Mutual ceased paying temporary
income benefits.
Santa and her husband, Sesar, then retained counsel and claimed the right to
additional benefits. A state-appointed designated doctor evaluated Santa and
determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement in July 2020 with
a 1% permanent impairment rating. Texas Mutual paid her impairment income
benefits based on the 1% rating. The Trevinos then asserted claims for the same
work-related injury against Jalapeno Tree for negligence, premises liability, and loss
of consortium. In its answer, Jalapeno Tree pleaded the “exclusive remedy” defense
under the Workers’ Compensation Act, asserting that the Trevinos’ sole remedy
against Jalapeno Tree is the recovery of workers’ compensation. See TEX. LAB.
CODE ANN. § 408.001(a). Jalapeno Tree moved for summary judgment on the
exclusive-remedy provision as well as on a quasi-estoppel theory. In response, the
–2–
Trevinos argued that Jalapeno Tree, despite being listed on the Texas Mutual policy
as an additional named insured, was not covered by workers’ compensation
insurance.
On October 17, 2022, the trial court granted Jalapeno Tree’s motion for
summary judgment. The Trevinos filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied by
operation of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b. The Trevinos then appealed the trial
court’s judgment on January 24, 2023. In one issue, the Trevinos complain that the
trial court erred in granting Jalapeno Tree’s motion for summary judgment. In
response, Jalapeno Tree argues that it conclusively proved its exclusive-remedy
defense, and therefore, summary judgment was proper.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a summary judgment de novo. Trial v. Dragon, 593 S.W.3d 313,
316 (Tex. 2019). To prevail, a defendant moving for traditional summary judgment
must either negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s theory of recovery or plead
and conclusively prove each element of an affirmative defense. TEX. R. CIV. P.
166a(c); Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996). We note that whether
the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation act applies is an
affirmative defense. See Exxon Corp. v. Perez, 842 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tex. 1992);
Vega v. Silva, 223 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).
–3–
III. DISCUSSION
Recovery of workers’ compensation benefits “is the exclusive remedy of an
employee covered by workers’ compensation insurance coverage or a legal
beneficiary against the employer…for the death of or a work-related injury sustained
by the employee.” TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 408.001(a). To prove the exclusive-
remedy affirmative defense, a defendant must show that (1) it is the plaintiff’s
employer; (2) it subscribes to (or is covered by) workers’ compensation insurance;
and (3) the injury is work-related. Port Elevator-Brownsville v. Casados, 358
S.W.3d 238, 243 (Tex. 2012). The Trevinos dispute only the second element,
arguing that evidence exists in the record sufficient to raise an issue of material fact
as to whether Jalapeno Tree was covered by workers’ compensation insurance.
The Trevinos’ primary argument on appeal is that Golden Operating
Corporation, and not Jalapeno Tree, was listed as the named insured on the policy
as well as on Texas Mutual’s claim file as Santa’s employer. While the Trevinos are
correct that Golden Operating Company is the named insured, the record also shows
that Jalapeno Tree is listed on Golden Operating Corporation’s policy as an
additional insured. The policy listing Jalapeno Tree as an additional insured is
sufficient summary judgment proof of workers’ compensation coverage. See, e.g.,
Martinez v. H.B. Zachry Co., 976 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
1998, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment when employer offered the
–4–
Information Page of a policy and an affidavit from the employer’s claim manager
swearing that the copy was true and correct).
The Trevinos also argue that because the Texas Department of Insurance was
unable to locate proof of workers’ compensation documentation upon request that a
fact question exists regarding coverage. However, the TDI letter, as shown in Exhibit
1 of the Trevinos’ summary judgment response, does not state that Jalapeno Tree
was not covered, only that no documentation could be found. This letter, therefore,
does not contradict the summary judgment evidence offered by Jalapeno Tree.
The record contains both a workers’ compensation policy covering Jalapeno
Tree’s employees and affidavits from the insurance company regarding coverage,
both of which conclusively establish the existence of coverage. See id. Therefore,
the trial court did not err in granting Jalapeno Tree’s motion for summary judgment
on the basis of the exclusive-remedy defense.1 We overrule the Trevinos’ sole issue
on appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Maricela Breedlove/
230086f.p05 MARICELA BREEDLOVE
JUSTICE
1
Because we find that summary judgment was proper on Jalapeno Tree’s exclusive remedy defense,
we do not address its quasi-estoppel defense. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
–5–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
SANTA TREVINO AND SESAR On Appeal from the 68th Judicial
TREVINO, Appellants District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04245.
No. 05-23-00086-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Breedlove. Justices Carlyle and
JALAPENO TREE OPERATING, Goldstein participating.
LLC, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee JALAPENO TREE OPERATING, LLC
recover its costs of this appeal from appellants SANTA TREVINO AND SESAR
TREVINO.
Judgment entered this 21st day of February, 2024.
–6–