Texas Workers Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauer, 43 S.Ct.J. 1139, involved a second appeal from a trial court take-nothing judgment against the worker. In order to put the case to rest, once and for all, the Supreme Court rendered judgment for the Texas Workers Compensation Insurance Fund and in the process reiterated the standard for submission of a jury instruction as part of the trial court's charge.
FACTS OF CASE
This case involves a worker's compensation claim filed by Mike Mandlbauer arising from his employment with Apache Products Company. Mandlbauer sustained an on-the-job injury while working for Apache Products Company in September 1992. In November 1992 he underwent an MRI scan of his lower back which showed no bulging or herniated discs. Mandlbauer left his employment with Apache in February 1993 and went into a new line of employment. In November 1993, Mandlbauer was diagnosed with a herniated disc in his lower back in the same area where the MRI scan had been performed a year before.
The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund denied any future medical treatment, arguing that the 1993 treatment was not related to the September 1992, injury. As we are sure you are aware, under the current Worker's Compensation Act, an injured worker is entitled to lifetime medical care that is reasonably related to an on-the-job injury. The Fund has the burden of showing that any subsequent treatment is not related to the on-the-job injury. In the current case the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission agreed with the Fund that the 1993 treatment was not related to the September 1992, injury. Mandlbauer appealed to a district court and received a jury trial. The jury found in favor of the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict.
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
On appeal Mandlbauer complained that the trial court erred in refusing to submit a requested instruction on Aproducing cause@.
Noting that the trial court has considerable discretion to determine necessary and proper jury instructions 43 S.Ct. J. at 1178, the supreme court held that the trial court was within its discretion in refusing to include the requested instruction.
The supreme court found that the question on appeal, when the trial court refuses to submit a requested instruction, is whether the request was reasonably necessary to enable the jury to render a proper verdict 43 S.Ct.J. at 1179. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277.
The court also noted that in order for an instruction to be proper it must:
I. Assist the jury;
II. accurately state the law;
III. find support in the pleadings and the evidence.
43 S.Ct.J. at 1179
The court noted that in the instant case Mandlbauer did not file pleadings that he was relying upon a theory of producing cause. He did not produce evidence to support his producing cause theory. The charge submitted to the jury did not mention producing cause, but submitted the question concerning injury using the term Aresulting from. Mandlbauer failed to object to the charge. The court also noted that the TWCC Appeals Panel, Mandlbauer's pleadings, the statute upon which he was suing, and the charge all used the language Aresulting from, not producing cause. As a result of the lack of pleadings, lack of proof, and the language of the statute, the supreme court found that the trial court was within its discretion in refusing to include the instruction on producing cause.
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.