Texas Appeals Court Affirms Workers’ Comp Bar on Hydroblast Technician’s Claims Over Workplace Fight
- A Texas appeals court held on July 21 that state workers’ compensation law’s exclusive remedy provisions barred an industrial cleaning worker from suing his employer, USA DeBusk, over claims of assault and negligence stemming from a fight he’d had with a co-worker.
- The case stemmed from a fight the worker had with a crew leader at a Shell Oil job site over when to don required protective equipment. Both employees were fired the next day for violating the company’s non-aggression policy.
- The Texas 14th Court of Appeals held that because the worker was DeBusk’s employee at the time of the injury and that DeBusk carried workers’ compensation coverage, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision barred his claims for assault, negligence, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.
- In so doing, the court affirmed summary judgment against the worker, throwing out his claims that also included negligent hiring, supervision and retention.
- The court also rejected the worker’s retaliation claim under the Texas Human Rights Act, finding that reporting the workplace assault and cooperating with the company’s investigation did not qualify as a “protected activity” because it did not involve a complaint about discrimination covered under the Act.
Colorado Conducts Tiny Medical Marijuana in Workers’ Comp Pilot
- A small state-run pilot within the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment’s Division of Workers’ Compensation tested whether a registered medical marijuana patient could get workers’ comp insurance to cover dispensary purchases after a work-related injury, working with just one participant who suffered hand and back injuries and was using opioids at the study’s start.
- Dr. Ethan Moses, the division’s medical director, secured funding through the state Attorney General’s Office and the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, and coordinated care among multiple doctors with year-long clinical oversight, aiming to see whether cannabis could be made safer and easier to access through insurance for injured workers, not to further test its medical efficacy.
- The participant successfully navigated the insurance process and reported meaningful reductions in pain, improved function, increased quality of life, and a modest reduction in opioid use, according to the study’s published conclusions.
- Moses said broader insurance company adoption isn’t imminent, since Colorado offers no legal protections for off-hour cannabis use and workers’ comp claims require information to flow from treating providers to insurers and potentially to employers, but he’s hopeful insurers may eventually see cannabis as a way to offset the costs of opioid-related settlements.