PJC General Negligence 2024

PJC 20.3

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —T IMELINESS OF R ESPONDING

COMMENT When to use. PJC 20.3 should be used if neither the employer nor the carrier was notified of the claimant’s injury within thirty days from the date of injury and the plaintiff has pleaded and offered evidence on the issue of “good cause” for failing to report the injury within thirty days. PJC 20.3A should be used when the claimant is attempting to overcome a Division finding that the employee did not have good cause for failing to provide notice. PJC 20.3B should be used when the carrier is attempting to overcome a Division finding that the employee did have good cause for failing to provide notice. 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 and instructions. Failure to notify an employer relieves the employer and the employer’s insurance carrier of liability unless good cause exists for failure to provide notice in a timely manner or the employer or the carrier does not contest the claim. Tex. Lab. Code § 409.002(2). Ultimate question is worker’s belief. The ultimate question in a good-cause issue is the worker’s belief. The worker may have believed that his injury was trivial ( see Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Stanley , 534 S.W.2d 191, 192 (Tex. App.—Tex arkana 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.)), that his claim had been filed by his employer ( see Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. Thomas , 517 S.W.2d 832, 837 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.)), or that his disability was due to other causes ( see Davis v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n , 516 S.W.2d 452, 453–54 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1974, no writ)). See also Safford v. Cigna Insurance Co. , 983 S.W.2d 317 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied); Butler v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. , 871 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, writ denied). Evidence of more than one injury. If there is evidence of more than one injury, the date of the injury inquired about should be included in the question. Occupational disease. In an occupational disease case, the name of the disease inquired about (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome) may replace the words the injury. In such cases, 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 of the date of the injury in the second instruction following the question. Good cause must extend to time of reporting. Good cause must arise within thirty days of the date of injury and must continue until the time of reporting. See Con tinental Casualty Co. v. Cook , 515 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. 1974); Texas Casualty Insurance Co. v. Beaseley , 391 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. 1965). The thirty-day time period for reporting the injury does not “restart” on the date good cause ends. Texas Workers’ Compensa tion Appeal No. 93711 (Sept. 10, 1993).

296