“Helplessness as the Touchstone” – Fifth Circuit Clarifies Employer Duty When Quarantining COVID-Positive H-2A Workers
Commentary on Rodriguez v. Blaine Larsen Farms, Inc., No. 22-10514 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025)

1. Introduction

Rodriguez v. Blaine Larsen Farms confronts a tragic death during the first summer of the COVID-19 pandemic and the legal aftermath that followed. Marco Antonio Galvan, a Mexican national employed under the H-2A visa programme, died in quarantine less than three weeks after arriving at the potato farm that hired him. His widow, Silvia Garcia Rodriguez, sued Blaine Larsen Farms (“BLF”) in Texas state court, asserting a battery of negligence-based and contract claims.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted BLF summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit – after pausing the appeal while a Texas workers’-comp proceeding played out – affirmed.

The panel’s opinion, though unpublished, delivers a significant clarification: an employer that quarantines sick employees does not automatically assume a heightened “negligent-undertaking” duty unless the employees are demonstrably “helpless” and deprived of outside aid. The court further signalled caution in applying Texas’s Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA) and Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) but ultimately disposed of the case on ordinary tort and contract principles: the record simply contained no evidence of duty, breach, or causation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Disposition: District court’s grant of summary judgment to BLF affirmed.
• Key Holdings:
  • No negligent-undertaking duty arose from BLF’s decision to quarantine Galvan; factual circumstances fell far short of the “absolute control and helplessness” paradigm found in Baker v. Adkins.
  • Common-law employer duty to provide medical aid is triggered only when the employee is both incapable of self-help and in immediate and urgent danger; neither element was supported by summary-judgment evidence.
  • Plaintiff failed to adduce expert or scientific proof of causation, as required not only by ordinary negligence law but also, if applicable, by the PLPA.
  • Derivative claims (wrongful-death, survival, loss of consortium) collapsed with the primary negligence and contract claims.
  • The court declined to decide definitively whether PLPA or TWCA barred the suit, underscoring that even without statutory bars, plaintiff could not carry her summary-judgment burdens.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The opinion canvasses a century’s worth of Texas authority on employer liability and negligent undertaking:

• Baker v. Adkins, 278 S.W. 272 (Tex. App. 1925, writ ref’d) – The archetype of heightened duty: a smallpox-stricken rail worker placed in a railcar, denied family contact, and left in deplorable conditions. The Fifth Circuit contrasts Galvan’s circumstances with the “absolute control” and “brutal neglect” in Baker, concluding that BLF’s conduct was worlds apart.
• Cooper v. M.N. Gumbert Corp., 2018 WL 4470748 (Tex. App.—San Antonio) – Restates the two-part prerequisite (helplessness + immediate urgent need) for employer medical-aid duty. The panel applies this test directly to Galvan’s facts.
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) & Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, 144 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 1998) – Provide the summary-judgment framework: plaintiffs must put forth evidence for each essential element.
• Johnson v. Tyson Foods, 2023 WL 2645553 (5th Cir.) – First Fifth-Circuit application of the PLPA. The court distinguishes Tyson (pleadings-stage exposure claims) from Rodriguez (post-exposure treatment theory).
• University of Texas Rio Grande Valley v. Oteka, 2025 WL 1668315 (Tex.) – Clarifies that course-and-scope questions under the TWCA are reviewable de novo by courts, foreshadowing the panel’s reluctance to treat the workers’-comp ruling as preclusive.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Summary-Judgment Posture. BLF carried its initial burden by pointing to the absence of evidence on duty, breach, and causation. Plaintiff then had to “make a showing sufficient” on each element – but did not.
2. Duty Analysis.
   • Negligent Undertaking: Under Texas law a party that voluntarily undertakes services for another must exercise reasonable care if it has displaced other potential aid and rendered the victim helpless. The court found:
     • Galvan had continuous phone access, three roommates, outside calls from hospital staff, family support, and a supply of food/medicine – refuting helplessness.
     • BLF’s rules allowed workers to request supplies or transport; thus the farm did not “isolate to the exclusion of all outside assistance.”
     Duty therefore never arose.
   • Common-Law Medical-Aid Duty: Borrowing from railroad-injury cases, Texas imposes a duty only where the employee is “incapable of helping himself” and faces an “immediate and urgent” need. Plaintiff offered no evidence that those conditions existed before the morning of Galvan’s collapse, and BLF called 911 promptly once alerted.
3. Breach & Causation. Even assuming a duty, plaintiff supplied:
   • No expert testimony that additional or earlier care would probably have saved Galvan’s life (causation).
   • No proof that BLF refused any specific request for medical help (breach).
4. Contract Theories. The H-2A paperwork merely obligated BLF to provide periodic transportation to town and basic living necessities – both of which the record showed it did. No contractual promise of medical treatment surfaced.
5. Statutory Defenses (TWCA & PLPA). The panel sidestepped final rulings on these defences, signalling:
   • TWCA exclusivity might or might not apply depending on whether infection was “work-related,” an issue still litigated in state tribunals.
   • PLPA focuses on exposure claims; its retroactive reach to post-exposure mal-treatment claims is uncertain. Absent need to decide, the court left the question open.
   The takeaway: defendants should plead both statutes, but courts may resolve cases on traditional tort grounds first.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Although labelled “non-precedential,” the opinion is likely to shape future litigation for three reasons:

• Refined Standard for Pandemic-Era Employer Liability. Plaintiffs cannot rely on the mere act of employer-mandated quarantine to establish a heightened duty. They must prove both displacement of alternative aid and employee helplessness.
• Guidance on PLPA Ambit. By declining to rule, the court hints that PLPA immunity is not a foregone conclusion where the complaint targets medical care rather than exposure. Future pleadings will need to articulate precisely which conduct (exposure vs. treatment) they challenge.
• Intersection with H-2A Programme. Foreign guest-worker agreements do not automatically graft medical-aid obligations onto employers. Advocacy groups may now push for explicit contractual clauses or regulatory amendments if they wish to fill that gap.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Negligent Undertaking – A doctrine imposing liability when a party voluntarily assumes responsibility for another’s protection and then performs negligently. Crucially, Texas requires that the actor’s assumption increase the risk of harm or the vulnerable party relies on the undertaking to their detriment.
• Gross Negligence – A heightened form of negligence involving an act or omission carried out with conscious indifference to the rights or welfare of others. Under the TWCA, gross-negligence claims against subscribing employers are not barred by exclusivity.
• TWCA Exclusivity – In Texas, if an employee’s injury is “work-related” and the employer carries workers’-comp insurance, the employee generally cannot sue in tort – except for intentional torts and, by statute, gross negligence causing death.
• Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA) – 2021 Texas statute granting immunity from liability for pandemic-disease exposure unless the plaintiff can produce “reliable scientific evidence” showing that the defendant’s failure to follow authoritative guidelines probably caused the infection.
• H-2A Visa Programme – Federal scheme enabling U.S. agricultural employers to hire temporary foreign workers. Employers must provide housing, transportation, and certain living necessities but are not expressly required to furnish medical care beyond emergency services available to the general public.

5. Conclusion

Rodriguez v. Blaine Larsen Farms reinforces a common-sense boundary on employer liability during extraordinary public-health events. The Fifth Circuit underscores that:

1. Quarantine – even when mandated by the employer – does not, by itself, create a special custodial relationship or an expansive medical-care duty.
2. Texas negligent-undertaking doctrine remains tethered to “helplessness + absolute control”; absent those elements, ordinary negligence principles govern.
3. Plaintiffs must marshal concrete, expert-driven evidence on causation, especially where statutory shields like the PLPA loom in the background.

For employers, the decision offers a roadmap: document quarantine protocols, maintain communication pathways, and respond promptly to requests for aid. For plaintiffs’ counsel, it is a cautionary tale: without evidence of duty, breach, and causation – and without clear contractual promises – even the most sympathetic tragedy may not withstand summary judgment.