PJC General Negligence 2024

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —L IFETIME I NCOME B ENEFITS

PJC 25.5

PJC 25.5

Total and Permanent Loss of Vision—Question

PJC 25.5A Total and Permanent Loss of Vision—Question—When Claimant Appeals QUESTION ______ Did Paul Payne suffer an injury that is a producing cause of the total loss of sight in both eyes? [Insert PJC 25.1A definitions of “producing cause” and “total loss of use.”] Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ PJC 25.5B Total and Permanent Loss of Vision—Question—When Carrier Appeals QUESTION ______ Did Paul Payne not suffer an injury that is a producing cause of the total loss of sight in both eyes? [Insert PJC 25.1A definitions of “producing cause” and “total loss of use.”] Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 25.5 should be used if there is a dispute about the nature or extent of a bilateral eye injury. See Tex. Lab. Code §408.161(a)(1). If there is a dis pute about the existence of an injury to the worker’s eyes, PJC 25.5 should be adjusted to determine whether such an injury exists. See Dallas National Insurance Co. v. De La Cruz , 470 S.W.3d 56, 58 (Tex. 2015); Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. Muro , 347 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. 2011). 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.

363