Grapevine, Texas City Code of Ordinances and Laws Index

PART II – CODE OF ORDINANCES | Code of Ordinances | Grapevine, TX | Municode Library

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Texas Tidbits: Past and Present

Independent Contractor Or Employee? Case Studies From Texas Workforce Commission Appeals–Fort Worth, Texas Employment Defense Attorneys

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CASE STUDIES FROM

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION APPEALS

 

TWC Case 1 – Facts:

 

The employer failed to report wages for a worker who had been hired to repair and otherwise maintain appliances sold by the employer’s company. The claimant’s initial claim was disallowed due to lack of wage credits, and the claimant successfully appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, which ruled that the claimant was an employee whose wages should have been reported to TWC. At the hearing, the employer testified that it based its belief that the claimant was an independent contractor on the facts that the claimant furnished some of the tools for the work, used his own truck, and paid for his gas. However, the evidence also showed that the claimant worked only on jobs secured by the employer, charged fees set by the employer, and that customer payments went not to the claimant, but to the employer. Also, the employer essentially paid for the claimant’s work expenses. After losing at the Appeal Tribunal level, the employer appealed to the Commission, but lost again, all three Commissioners voting that the claimant was an employee, rather than an independent contractor.

 

Analysis: The evidence as a whole showed that the employer had sufficient control over the claimant to be considered his employer. In any case involving the issue of whether a given worker is an independent contractor or an employee, TWC looks for evidence that the worker is in effect an independent business entity in a position to make a profit or loss based upon how he manages his own enterprise. Several factors show that this claimant was not in such a position.

  • The employer either determined or was responsible for almost every factor in the profit or loss equation. The employer determined the claimant’s pay rate and paid him on an hourly basis. A true independent contractor would negotiate his own compensation with his own customers and be paid on a per-job basis.
  • The claimant worked on jobs secured by the employer. An independent contractor would be responsible for securing his own customers.
  • The claimant supplied some of his tools, used his own truck, and paid for his gas, but the employer paid him an extra hourly amount to compensate for those expenses. A true independent contractor would pay his own costs of doing business. The employer supplied some tools and apparently all of the major equipment needed for the work, and it did not charge the claimant for the use of those items.
  • In addition, the materials used for the jobs on which the claimant worked were supplied by the employer. An independent contractor would be responsible for supplying all of the tools, equipment, materials, and supplies for the job.
  • The employer determined the fees paid by the customers. A true independent contractor would set the price to be charged to the customers.
  • The customers paid the employer for the work done. If the claimant had been an independent contractor, the customers would have paid him.
  • If additional help was needed on a particular job, the employer hired and paid additional laborers. An independent contractor would be the one to decide whether additional help would be hired and how much to pay them.
  • The claimant performed his services under the employer’s name. A true independent contractor would perform the work under his own business name.
  • The services performed by the claimant were directly integrated into the employer’s business. Anytime a worker’s services are so closely connected to those offered by a company, the company is presumed to exercise enough direction and control over his work to ensure the quality thereof.

 

The only aspect of the work relationship over which the claimant had a significant amount of control was that of his hours. The claimant usually determined the time of his work by agreement with the employer’s customers. However, that small factor is inconsequential when taken together with the other factors discussed above.

 

This claimant was not in business for himself. For the reasons noted above, the claimant was an employee, and his wages should have been reported as such to TWC.

 

TWC Case 2 – Facts:

 

The employer was an accounting firm. The claimant was hired to perform contract bookkeeping services for the employer’s clients who needed such services. He worked only on jobs assigned to him by the employer and was paid a commission for the work; the commission was based on fees paid by the clients to the employer, and the employer determined the level of fees. The claimant was paid on a weekly basis. He used the employer’s office space, equipment, and supplies. The employer reviewed the claimant’s work and returned faulty work to the claimant for corrections before delivering the work to clients.

 

The claimant’s initial claim had been disallowed due to insufficient wage credits; the claimant appealed, and the Appeal Tribunal awarded wage credits, finding that the claimant had been an employee of the employer. The employer appealed, and the Commission unanimously ruled that the Appeal Tribunal decision was correct.

 

Analysis: This claimant was not an independent contractor. Several factors lead to that conclusion:

  • The claimant’s work was directly integrated in the primary service of the employer. A business hires an independent contractor in order to get expertise it is not in a position to supply for itself, and this business was definitely in a position to supply bookkeeping services, since it was an accounting firm.
  • The claimant did not secure his own jobs, as a true independent contractor would, but rather worked on assignments given to him directly by the employer.
  • The claimant had no control over the factors of the profit and loss equation, since he had no substantial investment in an independent business enterprise, but rather used the employer’s facilities, supplies, and equipment. In addition, the claimant had no role in setting the price for his work or the level of his commission pay, as a true independent contractor would.
  • Finally, the employer checked the claimant’s work for accuracy and returned mistakes to the claimant for corrections. In a true independent contractor situation, the “employer” (who would thus be the independent contractor’s customer) would be in no position to make such judgments about the accuracy of details of the contractor’s work. The fact that the employer was so concerned about the accuracy of the claimant’s work before releasing it to the clients strongly indicates that the employer felt it had the primary responsibility for the work in question. A true independent contractor would not only be delivering his work directly to his clients, but would also have the primary responsibility and liability for the work.

 

Conclusion: this claimant was an employee – the wages should have been reported.

 

TWC Case 3 – Facts:

 

The claimant was paid on an hourly basis to serve as a contract office manager; her main duties were to train the employer’s employees how to do their jobs, monitor the quality of their work, and to perform clerical duties in the office. The claimant had signed a written agreement specifying that she was an independent contractor. The claimant’s initial claim had been disallowed for lack of wage credits, but the Appeal Tribunal ruled that the claimant was an employee. The Commission upheld the hearing officer’s ruling in a unanimous decision.

 

Analysis: An hourly pay rate is strongly indicative of an employment relationship, whereas most independent contractors are paid by the job or project. In this case, the claimant had no opportunity for a profit or loss, since all materials and facilities were supplied by the employer. Since the claimant’s job was to train the employer’s employees and monitor the quality of their work, she essentially functioned as their supervisor – it is difficult to imagine a job function that would be more directly integrated into the employer’s business. In addition, the fact that the claimant also performed a number of routine clerical tasks associated with the employer’s business raises a presumption that she was an employee. The fact that the claimant had agreed in writing that she was an independent contractor is irrelevant, since the facts show that she was an employee. The claimant’s wages should have been reported as wages from employment.

 

TWC Case 4 – Facts:

 

The employer’s company was a car rental agency in a major city, with locations downtown and at area airports. The claimant performed services as the driver of a shuttle van for the employer under a written contract specifying that he was an independent contractor. He was paid a set rate per mile plus an hourly rate for waiting time; paydays were at regular intervals. There was no evidence that he had negotiated the pay rate. He worked only on assignments given to him by the employer and did all work in the employer’s name. He had to be on 24-hour call. He was told by supervisors at various levels that he would be fired if he refused to make runs as directed by the employer. The claimant worked for the employer on a continuous basis for about a year.

 

Analysis: The claimant was an employee based upon the following factors:

  • The claimant did not negotiate the compensation for the work.
  • The claimant worked only on assignments given to him by the employer, and the assignments involved the employer’s customers; a true independent contractor would have received his assignments from his own customers.
  • Unlike independent contractors, the claimant had no control over his own time; he had to be on 24-hour call, effectively preventing him from any attempts at developing his own business.
  • The claimant performed the services in the employer’s name – if he had had his own company, he would have performed the work under his company’s name.
  • Just like any employee, he worked for a pay rate imposed by the employer, instead of negotiating his own compensation.
  • The repeated warnings by the employer that it would fire the claimant for refusal to make runs as instructed is conclusive evidence that the employer exercised direction and control over the services performed by the claimant.
  • The claimant’s services were directly integrated into the primary service offered by the employer, indicative of an employment relationship.

 

In view of the above facts, the written agreement that the claimant was an independent contractor had no effect concerning this employer’s legal obligation to report the claimant’s wages and pay the appropriate state UI tax.

 

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

 

Employment Law Defense

Significant Laws Impacting the Hiring Process for Texas Employers–Fort Worth, Texas Employment Defense Attorneys

 

Significant Laws Impacting the Hiring Process for Texas Employers

 

The main thrust of all employment discrimination laws is to make it illegal for employers to treat employees or applicants adversely on the basis of something about themselves that they cannot change, or should not be expected to change. Such factors are called “immutable characteristics”. For example, one cannot change one’s race or color, gender, age, or national origin, cannot readily change one’s disability status, and should not be expected to change one’s religion, as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Below is a listing of the most important federal and Texas statutes relating to employment discrimination (see the note below*, as well as the article titled “Thresholds for Coverage Under Employment-Related Laws” in this part of the book for detailed information regarding employee counts).

 

Federal

  1. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII – covers employers with at least 15 employees – protects against discrimination based upon race, color, gender, national origin, and religion – this law also started the EEOC
  2. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) – incorporated by amendment into the Title VII statute noted above, the PDA clarifies that pregnancy and related conditions are considered to be a subset of “gender” for discrimination law purposes; the law prohibits employers from treating women with pregnancy or related conditions any less favorably than other employees who have medical conditions that place a similar limitation on their ability to, or availability for, work
  3. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) – covers employers with at least 20 employees – protects against discrimination based upon age against people who are age 40 or older
  4. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) – covers employers with at least 15 employees – protects against discrimination based upon disabilities, the perception of disabilities, or association with people with disabilities
  5. Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2009 (GINA) – covers employers with at least 15 employees – prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information, as well as the use, gathering, and disclosure of genetic information in the context of employment relationships
  6. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) – discrimination protection provisions cover employers with at least 4 employees – protects against discrimination based upon national origin or citizenship – this law also started the I-9 process
  7. U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Section 525 – covers any employer – prohibits discrimination based upon bankruptcy history or bankruptcy claim filing status
  8. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. §1981) – covers all employers with at least one (1) employee or anyone who hires another person to perform any kind of work or services for pay (thus, it covers even independent contractor situations) – protects against discrimination based upon race or color (additional cautionary note: some national origin discrimination claims can be turned into race or color discrimination claims, depending upon the circumstances)

 

State

 

Every state in the United States has one or more laws prohibiting the forms of discrimination covered in the federal laws noted above. Some states add additional protected classifications such as sexual orientation, veteran status, history of filing certain types of claims, and so on. For example, Texas has the following anti-discrimination statutes:

  1. Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21 (formerly known as the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act) – covers employers with at least 15 employees – protects against discrimination based upon race, color, gender, national origin, religion, age, and disability
  2. Texas Workers’ Compensation Act – anti-discrimination provisions cover all employers – protects against discrimination based upon workers’ compensation claim history – although the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that this statute applies only to employees, not to applicants, discriminating against applicants based upon workers’ compensation claim history will generally be viewed by the EEOC as a violation of disability discrimination laws

 

* Unless the statute that creates the employee limit also expressly states that the limit is jurisdictional, an employer with an employee count under the limit could still face liability in a claim or lawsuit unless it affirmatively shows that the limit precludes coverage in that situation – see the discussion of the Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation case.

 

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Employment Law Defense

History of Colleyville, Texas–Texas Civil Litigation Attorneys

History of Colleyville – Colleyville TX

History of Colleyville

Colleyville began as a rural community, situated primarily between Big Bear and Little Bear Creek in the central portion of northeastern Tarrant County.Dr. and Mrs. Colley
The first significant settlement of the area began in the 1850s. Samuel C.H. Witten came to Texas from Missouri in 1854 and established a farm along Little Bear Creek. He became one of the founders of the Spring Garden community, which flourished in the 1860s around a well-known school, finally declining in the 1870s as Bedford rose to prominence. Other settlers from the upper South included Jonathan A. Riley, who came from Kentucky in 1856 and settled near the Spring Garden community; the Kentucky-born adventurer and Civil War veteran Ryan Harrington, who bought land in 1865 near the community of Pleasant Glade; and William B. Cheek, who migrated to northeast Tarrant County from Kentucky in 1869, eventually settling near Ryan Harrington’s property.Other farmers continued to arrive throughout the 19th century. William Dunn settled property between Big Bear Creek and Bransford in 1875; the James R. Forbes family, of Bedford County, Tennessee, established a farm in 1887; and French native Anthelm Bidault began cultivating his renowned orchards and vineyards near the Pleasant Run community in 1897. The communities of Pleasant Glade and Pleasant Run were hamlets situated in clearings of the Eastern Cross Timbers. Churches, schools, and stores served the rural population. Pleasant Run Baptist Church, organized in 1877, was the first church within what is now Colleyville.The St. Louis, Arkansas, & Texas Railway (later known as the St. Louis & Southwestern or the Cotton Belt Route) extended its tracks between Fort Worth and Grapevine in the late 1800s, passing through the hamlet of Red Rock in the Colleyville area in 1888. The nearby community of Bransford, clustered around the general store and post office of Felix G. Bransford, disappeared that same year when the store and post office were moved to Red Rock, which was renamed Bransford. The new Bransford prospered over the next several decades, becoming the largest community in the Colleyville area. In addition to the post office, the town had two blacksmith shops, a livery stable, four general stores, and a lodge hall shared by the Masons, Odd Fellows and Woodmen of the World. Four doctors resided there.

Lilburn Howard Colley was one of these doctors. A native of Missouri and a veteran of the Union Army, Dr. Colley and his wife moved to Texas in 1880, eventually settling in Bransford soon after the town was founded. In his 40 years of active practice, he became one of the best-known physicians in northeast Tarrant County and was widely respected as a leader in the Bransford area. Colley’s name became associated with a community that formed around a store opened by W.G. Couch on Glade Road south of Bransford in 1914. The surrounding area gradually acquired the name “Colleyville.” The hamlets of Pleasant Run and Pleasant Glade had populations of 75 and 80, respectively, in 1940, and today have all but disappeared. Bransford declined after World War I as the automobile took precedence over railroads for passenger travel. The last store, owned by John R. Webb, closed in 1925. The town became known primarily for a large nursery established by Andy Felps around 1920. Bransford had a population of 155 in 1940, but today has vanished except for a cluster of houses around the train tracks.
Colleyville was incorporated on January 10, 1956, and its city limits are now contiguous with those of Grapevine and Euless on the east, Bedford and Hurst on the south, Keller and North Richland Hills on the west and Southlake on the north. Although once a predominantly rural community, Colleyville has experienced significant residential development during the past decade. From a population of about 1,500 in 1960, it grew to 6,700 in 1980 and had an estimated population of 11,300 by 1989. Grapevine Highway (Highway 26) passes through its center, and many of its residents commute to Fort Worth.
“Tarrant County Historic Resources Survey”
Historic Preservation Council of Tarrant County, Texas
Copyright, 1990

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Texas Tidbits: Past and Present

Index to Colleyville, Texas Code of Ordinances and Laws–Texas Civil Litigation Attorneys

PART II – COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS CODE OF ORDINANCES | Code of Ordinances | Colleyville, TX | Municode Library

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Texas Tidbits: Past and Present

Constructive Knowledge of Dangerous Conditions in Texas Premises Liability Cases–Fort Worth, Texas Non Subscriber Attorneys

 

The mere fact that a store employee is simply in close proximity to a dangerous or hazardous condition does not replace what is called in Texas, “the time-notice rule”. Constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition can be shown by proof that the dangerous or hazardous condition in dispute had existed for a reasonably long enough period of time  that the premises owner reasonably should have discovered it. This is known as the “time-notice rule,” and the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “temporal evidence best indicates whether the owner had a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy a dangerous condition.” As the Texas Supreme Court stated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 SW.3d 812, 816 (Tex. 2002):

 

An employee’s proximity to a hazard, with no evidence indicating how long
the hazard was there, merely indicates that it was possible for the
premises owner to discover the condition, not that the premises owner
reasonably should have discovered it. Constructive notice demands a more
extensive inquiry. Without some temporal evidence, there is no basis upon
which the factfinder can reasonably assess the opportunity the premises
owner had to discover the dangerous condition.
Without the time related requirement of the, owners of real property could be subject to strict liability claims for any dangerous or hazardous condition on the premises, which would be in itself unreasonable.

 

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Employment Law Defense, Insurance Defense Litigation, Nonsubscriber Law

Property That Is Subject to Execution in Texas–Fort Worth, Texas Collections Attorneys

   Property Subject to Execution in Texas

Corporations in Texas do not have what is considered non-exempt property. However, individual debtors can.

The judg­ment debtor’s property is subject to levy by execution if it is not exempted by constitution, statute, or other rule of law. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, §§ 49-51; Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 41.001-42.004 (Vernon 1984); Tex. R. Civ. P. 637. In most instances, the follow­ing kinds of property will not be exempt:

1.Cash on hand or in checking or savings accounts;

2.Pleasure boats and their motors and trailers;

3 Collections (stamps, coins, etc.);

4. Stocks, bonds, notes, and other invest­ments;

5. Real property not claimed as the homestead (summer home, rent property, etc.); and

6. Airplanes.

 

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Collections and Foreign Judgments, Contracts and Commercial Litigation

Attorney’s Fees and Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code–Fort Worth, Texas Contracts Law Attorneys

Even in the absence of entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the contract, a party in a Texas case can still recover attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code.

Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code provides that a person may recover reasonable attorney’s fees, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs, if the claim is for rendered services, performed labor, furnished materials, a suit on a sworn account or . . . an oral or written contract.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code  38.001. It is significant that the claim must be a valid one.

A party must (1) prevail on a cause of action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable, and (2) recover damages. Green Int’l, Inc. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384, 390 (Tex. 1997).

The claimant must present the claim to the opposing party or to a duly authorized agent of the opposing party and payment for the just amount owed must not have been tendered before the expiration of the 30th day after the claim is presented. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 38.002.

The prevailing party is the one “vindicated” by the judgment rendered. See Taylor Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Armstrong Elec. Supply Co., 167 S.W.3d 522, 532 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). In determining the prevailing party, the focus is on the successful party on the merits of the case. Id. A party can be the prevailing party and thus entitled to attorney’s fees even where the amount recovered is offset by an amount awarded to the opposing party. Id. at 533 (citing Blizzard v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 756 S.W.2d 801, 806 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ)).

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

 

Collections and Foreign Judgments, Construction Law, Contracts and Commercial Litigation

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Basics of Texas Workforce Commission–Fort Worth, Texas Employment Lawyers

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

  1. FMLA applies to any public or private employer with 50 or more employees, as well as to all public agencies, and public and private elementary and secondary schools, regardless of number of employees
  2. a covered employer must post a notice in the workplace concerning the FMLA and how employees may qualify under its provisions (click here (PDF) for the official poster from the U.S. Department of Labor)
  3. even though all governmental (public) employers and all elementary and secondary schools are covered employers regardless of how many employees they have, individual eligibility requirements may still render an employee ineligible to take FMLA leave – see the following item
  4. to be eligible, an employee has to have worked at least 1250 hours within the last 12 months; has to have worked at least 12 months’ total time for the employer; and be employed at a facility at which at least 50 employees are employed within a 75-mile radius – due to the 1250-hour requirement, many part-time employees will not be eligible for FMLA leave – however, state FMLA laws may have lower requirements – Texas does not have an FMLA-style law, so only the federal law applies
  5. be careful not to promise FMLA leave to an employee who is not eligible, because the company might have to extend such leave anyway if the conditions for equitable estoppel are satisfied (see the discussion of the Minard v. ITC Deltacom Communications case in “Other Types of Employment-Related Litigation” in the outline of employment law issues in part IV of this book)
  6. time spent in military duty counts toward both the hours worked and tenure requirements – for details, see the article titled “Legal Issues for Military Leave” in this book
  7. the reason for the absence must be the serious health condition of the employee or of a member of the employee’s immediate family; the birth or adoption of a child or the placement of a foster child in the home; or “any qualifying exigency” (which generally means an urgent or emergency situation) associated with the employee’s spouse, child, or parent being on active military duty, or having been notified of an impending order to active duty, in support of a contingency operation – see DOL’s poster on the new law at http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28a.pdf (PDF)), as well as FMLA regulation 29 C.F.R. § 825.126
  8. with regard to leave to care for a child’s serious health condition, or parental leave for a biological, adopted, or foster child, the term “parent” means father, mother, or anyone else who stands in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) to the child, including same-sex parents (see the DOL FMLA opinion letter AI 2010-3, issued on June 22, 2010)
  9. the employer must make up to 12 weeks of paid and/or unpaid leave during a year available to such an employee
  10. new military caregiver leave: up to 26 weeks of paid and/or unpaid leave during a year is available to an employee whose spouse, child, parent, or “next of kin” (nearest blood relative) is recovering from a serious illness or injury suffered in the line of duty while on active military duty; the law that created this category of FMLA leave also put an outside limit of 26 weeks of all types of FMLA leave in a “single 12-month period” – see http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28a.pdf (PDF) and FMLA regulation 29 C.F.R. § 825.127(c)
  11. the leave can be all at once or intermittent, even 2 or 3 hours at a time, but intermittent leave all goes toward the 12-week limit
  12. it is best to give employees prompt written notice that they are on FMLA leave and that they must keep in touch with the employer at regular intervals specified by the employer – the return date can be specified or left open
  13. FMLA leave cannot be counted against an employee under a “no-fault” or “point system”
  14. Generally, an employer’s duty to allow FMLA leave is separate from an employee’s duty to follow company policies regarding notice of absences and use of leave. In other words, a company must allow FMLA leave for an employee where its use is warranted, but is allowed to hold an employee accountable for failure to abide by company policies to the same extent that it holds other employees accountable in non-FMLA situations.
  15. important for compliance with Texas Payday Law limitations on wage deductions: if the employer is to make payments on behalf of the employee to keep the health insurance plan in effect during the FMLA leave, the employer should make sure to have the employee sign a written agreement that any money so paid will be regarded as an advance against future wages owed and will be repaid in installments deducted from future paychecks
  16. FLSA problem – docking exempt workers for time missed
    1. executive-, administrative-, and professional-exempt workers must meet the “salary basis” test – for all employers in the private sector, partial-day deductions from salary will destroy the salary basis for the exemption
    2. the only exception to that rule is for a situation covered by the FMLA – in that case, hourly docking of pay or leave time would be allowable, but careful documentation must be maintained – this exception only works if the employer, the employee, and the situation are all covered by the FMLA.
    3. Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.Martindale AVtexas[2]

Employment Law Defense

Texas Workers’ Compensation Acronyms and Phrases-TDI–Fort Worth, Texas Workers’ Compensation Lawyers

Appeals Panel Decision Manual – Acronyms

Acronyms
Acronym Phrase
Act Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
AMA American Medical Association
AP Appeals Panel
APA Administrative Procedure Act
APD AP Decision
AWW Average Weekly Wage
BCTS Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
BFOE Bona Fide Offer of Employment
BRC Benefit Review Conference
BRO Benefit Review Officer
CAD Coronary Artery Disease
CCH Contested Case Hearing
CE Claim Employer
CPR Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation
CRPS Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, was RSD, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
CTS Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
CVC Combined Values Chart
D&O Decision and Order (Hearing Officer’s)
DARS Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services
DB Death Benefits
DD Designated Doctor
DDL Designated Doctor List
Department Texas Department of Insurance
Division Division of Workers’ Compensation
DOI Date of Injury
DRE Diagnosed-Related Estimates
DRIS Dispute Resolution Information System
DSM III R 1 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition ? revised)
DW Deceased Worker
ER Emergency Room
FCE Functional Capacity Evaluation
FMLA Federal Medical Leave Act
FO Field Office
Guides 3rd Ed. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, second printing, dated February 1989, published by the American Medical Association
Guides 4th Ed. AMA Guides (1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th printing, including corrections and changes as issued by the AMA prior to May 16, 2000), fourth edition
HCN Health Care Network
HD Hearings Division
HNP Herniated Nucleus Pulposus
HO Hearing Officer
IC Insurance Carrier
IIBs Impairment Income Benefits
IPE Individualized Plan for Employment
IR Impairment Rating
IRO Independent Review Organization
IW Injured Worker
LHWCA Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act
LIBs Lifetime Income Benefits
LMSI Loss of Motion Segment Integrity
LOC Letter of Clarification
MDA Medical Disability Advisor
MDR Medical Dispute Resolution
MMI Maximum Medical Improvement
MRD Medical Review Division
MVA Motor Vehicle Accident
OAO Official Action Officer
ODG Official Disability Guidelines
PIP Personal Injury Protection
PT Physical Therapist
PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
ROM Range of Motion
ROMM Range of Motion Model
RME Required Medical Examination
RSD Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy-now CRPS-Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
SIBs Supplemental Income Benefits
SIF Subsequent Injury Fund
SS Spinal Surgery
TD Treating Doctor
TIBs Temporary Income Benefits
TRC Texas Rehabilitation Commission (Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services)
TWC Texas Workforce Commission
TWCC Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission
URA Utilization Review Agent
VRP Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.

Martindale AVtexas[2]

Workers' Compensation Defense