PJC General Negligence 2024

PJC 18.2

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —D EFENSES AND E XCEPTIONS

PJC 18.2 Intoxication—Question PJC 18.2A Intoxication—Question—When Claimant Appeals QUESTION ______ Did Paul Payne ’s injury occur while he was not in a state of intoxication? “Intoxication” means the state of— 1. having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent; or 2. not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties resulting from the voluntary introduction into the body of cocaine . Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ PJC 18.2B Intoxication—Question—When Carrier Appeals QUESTION ______ Did Paul Payne ’s injury occur while he was in a state of intoxication? [Insert PJC 18.2A definition of “intoxication.”] Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. If the evidence raises intoxication as a statutory exclusion from coverage, PJC 18.2 should be submitted. See Sanchez v. State Office of Risk Manage ment , 234 S.W.3d 96, 101–02 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). Only the parts of the definition raised by the evidence should be submitted. When there is evidence that the employee ingested a specific substance, such as cocaine, the instruction in element 2 should refer specifically to that substance. Burden of proof. The burden of proof should be placed appropriately in accor dance with the decision of the appeals panel. See PJC 15.1. Source of question. PJC 18.2 is based on the “intoxication” exception of Tex. Lab. Code § 406.032(1)(A), as defined in Tex. Lab. Code § 401.013.

264