CompFox AI Summary
This nunc pro tunc opinion corrects clerical errors in an earlier opinion concerning an appeal from a summary judgment. Appellants, heirs of Charles Pratt, sued Pilgrim's Pride Corporation after Pratt died from injuries sustained while working on Pilgrim's Pride's premises. Pratt, an employee of a nonsubscribing employer, had signed an agreement waiving common law claims against clients of his employer in exchange for participation in an Occupational Accident Plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that Pilgrim's Pride was indeed a client covered by the waiver. The court also determined that the waiver remained effective despite claims it was no longer in force at the time of injury, concluding that the plan's funding insurance policies did not supplant the agreement itself.
Pratt-Shaw v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas). This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This nunc pro tunc opinion corrects clerical errors in an earlier opinion concerning an appeal from a summary judgment. Appellants, heirs of Charles Pratt, sued Pilgrim's Pride Corporation after Pratt died from injuries sustained while working on Pilgrim's Pride's premises. Pratt, an employee of a nonsubscribing employer, had signed an agreement waiving common law claims against "clients" of his employer in exchange for participation in an Occupational Accident Plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that Pilgrim's Pride was indeed a "client" covered by the waiver. The court also determined that the waiver remained effective despite claims it was no longer in force at the time of injury, concluding that the plan's funding insurance policies did not supplant the agreement itself.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.