PJC General Negligence 2022

PJC 17.1

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —C OURSE & S COPE OF E MPLOYMENT

Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________

COMMENT When to use. PJC 17.1 should be used if there is a dispute about whether the injury was received in the course and scope of employment. PJC 17.1 may be condi tioned on the answer to PJC 16.1 if applicable. If injury is undisputed, and the only issue is whether it originated in the course and scope of employment, the definitions of “injury” may be omitted. Only the parts of the definitions raised by the evidence should be submitted. If there is evidence that the employee was engaged in recre ational, social, or athletic activities at the time of injury, the instruction at PJC 17.5 should be included. 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 definitions. The definitions of “injury” and “course and scope of employment” are found in the Code. See Tex. Lab. Code § 401.011(12), (26). For the language dealing with incitement, acceleration, or aggravation, see McCart ney v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. , 362 S.W.2d 838, 839 (Tex. 1962); State Office of Risk Management v. Adkins , 347 S.W.3d 394, 399 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.); State Office of Risk Management v. Escalante , 162 S.W.3d 619, 624 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. dism’d); and Gill v. Transamerica Insurance Co. , 417 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1967, no writ). For the language dealing with medical or surgical treatment, see Home Insurance Co. v. Gillum , 680 S.W.2d 844, 850–51 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.), and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Thurmond , 527 S.W.2d 180, 190 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.). See also Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeal No. 92538 (Nov. 25, 1992). For the language dealing with a mental or nervous disorder, see Bailey v. American General Insurance Co. , 279 S.W.2d 315, 318–19 (Tex. 1955). See also Texas Work ers’ Compensation Appeal Nos. 950749 (June 21, 1995); 030056 (Feb. 12, 2003); 060176 (Mar. 30, 2006). If a mental or nervous disorder is not accompanied by or does not follow a physical injury, to avoid confusion with the occupational disease theory of recovery, the injury should be shown to have resulted from an undesigned and unex pected event and be traceable to a definite time, place, and cause. Transportation Insurance Co. v. Maksyn , 580 S.W.2d 334, 336–38 (Tex. 1979); see also GTE South west v. Bruce , 998 S.W.2d 605, 609–11 (Tex. 1999); University of Texas System v. Schieffer , 588 S.W.2d 602, 605–07 (Tex. App.—Austin 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

246