PJC General Negligence 2024

PJC 20.2

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —T IMELINESS OF R ESPONDING

Employer’s actual knowledge of injury. Failure to notify an employer relieves the employer and the employer’s insurance carrier of liability unless the employer, a person eligible to receive notice, or the employer’s insurance carrier has actual knowl edge of the employee’s injury. Tex. Lab. Code §409.002. Therefore, when the employer has actual knowledge of the injury within thirty days, no further notice is required. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Berry , 90 S.W.2d 595, 597 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 1935, writ ref’d); Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Nance , 25 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1930, no writ). See also American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Martin , 97 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.); Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeal No. 92038 (Mar. 20, 1992) (actual knowledge found); Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeal Nos. 971072 (July 24, 1997); 040802 (June 4, 2002) (actual knowledge not found). Notice to carrier. Failure to notify an employer relieves the employer and the employer’s insurance carrier of liability unless the employer, a person eligible to receive notice, or the employer’s insurance carrier has actual knowledge of the employee’s injury. Tex. Lab. Code §409.002. Therefore, notice to the insurance car rier meets the statutory requirement. If timely notice to the carrier is disputed, the name of the carrier should replace ABC Company in the question and the words “or insurance carrier” should be inserted after “the employer” at the end of the instruction. See DeAnda v. Home Insurance Co. , 618 S.W.2d 529, 532 (Tex. 1980). Notice to particular individual. If there is evidence of notice to a particular agent of the employer, that individual’s name should replace ABC Company in the question and the instruction may be omitted. Occupational disease. If the injury is an occupational disease, for purposes of notice to the employer the name of the employer should be that of the person who employed the employee on the date of the last injurious exposure. See PJC 19.3. Also, the name of the disease inquired about (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome) should replace the words the injury , and the phrase after the date that Paul Payne knew or should have known that the injury may be related to the employment must replace the phrase after its occurrence in the question. If there is a dispute about the date of injury in an occupational disease case, the question should be preceded by the following question and an answer blank: What is the date that Paul Payne knew or should have known that the injury may be related to his employment? See Tex. Lab. Code § 409.001(a)(2).

294