The Court in Payne v. Galen Hospital Corporation d/b/a Clear Lake Medical Center, 43 S.Ct.J. 1167, held that an employee cannot sue an employer covered by workers compensation insurance for providing a prescription drug to which the employee had an adverse reaction.
FACTS OF CASE
The Plaintiff, Janis Payne, was a registered nurse employed by Galen Hospital. She sustained an on-the-job injury to her back. A doctor not associated with the hospital treated her and diagnosed her with a lumbar strain. He prescribed medication to the Plaintiff. The hospital had a program whereby employees requiring medication for on-the-job injuries received the medication free from the hospital pharmacy. The Plaintiff took the medication for four and a half months and then suffered a severe reaction. As a result of the severe reaction, she is totally and permanently disabled and will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
The Plaintiff made a claim for worker's compensation benefits for her back injury and also for her reaction to the medication. The worker's compensation carrier paid for all the Plaintiff's treatments for her back injury and for her reaction to the medication. She had also received payments for lost wages since the day of her back injury. As of September, 1996, the Plaintiff had received $87,783.00 in indemnity payments and $534,802.00 had been paid on the Plaintiff's behalf to her various health care providers.
The Plaintiff sued the hospital, her treating physician, and the manufacturer of the medication. The hospital moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provision barred the Plaintiff's suit against the hospital. The Plaintiff argued that her reaction to the medication was not work related and did not result from her employer-employee relationship with the hospital. The supreme court held that the Plaintiff's reaction to the medication was a work related injury and that her cause of action against the hospital was barred by the Texas Workers= Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provision.
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY PROVISION
In finding that the Plaintiff's claim against the hospital was barred by the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provision the court noted that the Act has previously been held to cover on-the-job injuries, as well as any effects of the treatment for the on-the-job injury. The supreme court also stated that drugs prescribed for on-the-job injuries are considered part of an employee's treatment under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
The Plaintiff attempted to argue that, though her reaction to the medication was a compensable injury, the reaction was an independent injury which did not occur in the course and scope of her employment. The supreme court found that since the reaction to the medication was a compensable injury under the Worker's Compensation Act that the Workers' Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy for an employee against his or her employer.
The Plaintiff also argued that the exclusivity provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act should not apply in her case because she stood in a consumer-retailer relationship with the hospital as opposed to an employee-employer, despite the fact her prescriptions were filled for free. In doing so, the Plaintiff raised the dual capacity doctrine.
The court, noting that the hospital only filled the Plaintiff's prescription because it was her employer as a result of an on-the-job injury, found that the dual capacity doctrine did not apply to the instant case.
ANALYSIS OF OPINION
In holding that the Plaintiff could not sue her employer, the Court held it will rarely allow an employer who provides workers' compensation coverage to be sued by an employee on any Aalternate theory of liability.
Please feel free to call any of our partners or associates with any questions that you may have at (361) 881-9217 or fax us at (361) 882-9437.