PJC General Negligence 2024

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —O CCUPATIONAL D ISEASE

PJC 19.1

compensability as an occupational disease. Maksyn , 580 S.W.2d at 337–38 (discussing former Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 8306, § 20); see also Brown , 635 S.W.2d 415 (plaintiff could not recover for heart attack due to mental stress, because such stress was not traceable to a definite time, place, and cause). The rule in both cases now appears to have been expressly adopted or approved by the legislature. See Tex. Lab. Code §§408.006, 408.008(1). Note that mental stimuli may result in a compensable injury under the accidental injury theory of recovery. Brown , 635 S.W.2d at 415; Bailey v. American General Insurance Co. , 279 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. 1955); Aetna Insurance Co. v. Hart , 315 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.—Houston 1958, writ ref’d n.r.e.). See PJC 19.1 Comment. For examples of claims for classic occupational disease, see Marts v. Transporta tion Insurance Co. , 111 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied), and Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund v. Lopez , 21 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2000, pet. denied.). For claims for repetitive trauma injury, see Saenz v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania , 66 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.), and Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeal Nos. 960929 (June 28, 1996), 972321 (Dec. 29, 1997). Ordinary diseases of life. Ordinary diseases of life, covered in the fourth para graph of the definition in PJC 19.1, are excluded from compensable occupational dis eases because an ordinary disease of life, or the hazards thereof, is not indigenous to an employee’s work or is not present in an increased degree in the employee’s work. Schaefer v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n , 612 S.W.2d 199, 205 (Tex. 1980); Home Insurance Co. v. Davis , 642 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1982, no writ); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Burris , 600 S.W.2d 402, 406–07 (Tex. App.— Tyler 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.). See also Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Gill , 173 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Texas Workers’ Compensa tion Appeal No. 93885 (Nov. 15, 1993). Caveat: aggravation, acceleration, or incitement. Submission of aggravation, acceleration, or incitement of an occupational disease, in the Committee’s opinion, is troublesome. Cases supporting the inclusion of the aggravation feature include United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bearden , 700 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1985, no writ); Leal v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. , 605 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, no writ); City of Bridgeport v. Barnes , 591 S.W.2d 939, 940–41 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Lubbock Independent School District v. Bradley , 579 S.W.2d 78, 81–82 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Teague v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. , 548 S.W.2d 957 (Tex. App.— Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); and Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Ratcliff , 537 S.W.2d 355, 359–60 (Tex. App.—Waco 1976, no writ). Cases rejecting the aggravation sub mission include Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. Schaefer , 598 S.W.2d 924, 928 (Tex. App.—Eastland), aff’d on other grounds , 612 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. 1980); and Davis , 642 S.W.2d at 269.

283