PJC General Negligence 2024

PJC 21.1

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —E XTENT - OF -I NJURY D ISPUTES

COMMENT When to use. PJC 21.1 should be used when a party has appealed from a decision of the Division of Workers’ Compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance (DWC) that concludes that the injured worker’s compensable injury does or does not extend to and include another compensable injury. Limitation on trial court’s jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction is limited to the issues decided by the appeals panel and on which judicial review has been sought. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.302(b). Accordingly, the trial court possesses jurisdiction over and should submit questions regarding only the extent-of-injury issues that were decided by the DWC and that have been appealed by an aggrieved party. See American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Fodge , 63 S.W.3d 801, 804 (Tex. 2001). 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 questions and instructions. Under the prior workers’ compensation law, an injury to one body part or system could extend to and affect another body part or system and thereby amplify the benefits otherwise due an injured worker. See Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. Wilson , 522 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. 1975); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Marmolejo , 383 S.W.2d 380, 381–82 (Tex. 1964). In a case under the current law (Tex. Lab. Code §408.161), the court held that an injury may be direct or indirect, but that if the injury is indirect it “must extend to and impair the statutory body part.” See Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. Muro , 347 S.W.3d 268, 276 (Tex. 2011). Necessary definitions. Certain definitions may be necessary and should be sub mitted with these questions, for example, “injury” (see PJC 17.1), “course and scope of employment” (see PJC 17.1), “producing cause” (see PJC 23.10), and “total loss of use” (see PJC 25.2). Specification of particular injury or diagnosis recommended. Although the Workers’ Compensation Act does not require a specific finding for the part of the body affected by the extension of the injury, the Committee recommends specificity regard ing the disputed issue as framed by the DWC because a party may not raise an issue in the trial court that was not raised before a DWC appeals panel. Tex. Lab. Code § 410.302(b); State Office of Risk Management v. Martinez , 539 S.W.3d 266, 269 (Tex. 2017); Alexander v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 188 S.W.3d 348, 353 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied). If evidence supports extension to more than one part of the body, each injury or diagnosis claimed should be submitted disjunctively and the jury should be instructed to answer separately for each. Caveat. Any question regarding extension of the compensable injury must be worded in the conjunctive. Specifically, the question is whether the injury extended to and affected other parts of the body. Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. Shannon ,

306