PJC General Negligence 2022

C HAPTER 15

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —B URDEN OF P ROOF ON J UDICIAL R EVIEW

PJC 15.1

Burden of Proof (Comment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

PJC 15.2

Consideration of Appeals Panel Decision (Comment) . . . . . . . . . 222

PJC 15.3

Weight to Be Given Opinion of Designated Doctor (Comment). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Note Chapters 15 through 27 are a section of pattern jury charges for workers’ compensation cases. Previous editions of the workers’ compensation PJC volume ( see, e.g. , Comm. on Pattern Jury Charges, State Bar of Tex., 2 Texas Pattern Jury Charges— Workers’ Compensation (2d ed. 1989)) were based on an earlier version of the workers’ compensation act. See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 8306, repealed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., 2d C.S., ch.1, § 16.01, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 114. The legislature repealed that version of the act when it reformed the workers’ compensation system in 1989. These reforms created a new regulatory agency, benefits structure, and dispute resolution process. See generally Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ruttiger , 381 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2012); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission v. Garcia , 893 S.W.2d 504, 510–16 (Tex. 1995) (discussing changes). The changes were subsequently codified in title 5 of the Texas Labor Code. Act of May 22, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 269, § 1, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 987, 1173. Statutory references in this volume are to the Texas Labor Code. Injuries occurring before January 1, 1991 (the effective date of the reform bill), are commonly referred to as “old-law cases.” Injuries occurring on or after January 1, 1991, are commonly referred to as “new-law cases.” The legal principles found in many old-law cases remain applicable to new-law cases. However, as the supreme court has observed, “Old-law cases can be useful in understanding the new act, but their relevance to any particular provision requires a careful comparison of the old and new law.” Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. Muro , 347 S.W.3d 268, 273 (Tex. 2011). Use of statutory language. The supreme court has held that when liability is asserted based on a provision of a statute or regulation, jury submission should follow the statutory language as closely as possible but may be altered somewhat to conform to the evidence of the case. Spencer v. Eagle Star Insurance Co. of America , 876 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex. 1994); Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co. , 601 S.W.2d

219