Appeals Panel Remands Course & Scope Case for Hearing Officer Error
The Appeals Panel has reversed the decision of a Benefit Contested Case Hearing Officer on the basis that the hearing officer misstated the factual underpinnings of the case. Because the hearing officer misstated material facts in the case, the Appeals Panel concluded that his application of the law to those facts was in error. This is a new theory of review for decisions rendered by Benefit Contested Case Hearing Officers.
Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel Decision No. 151511 involved a dispute over whether a claimant was in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured in a traffic accident while driving to work. The accident occurred while the claimant while was driving from his home in (city 1) to the employer’s warehouse in (city 2). The claimant was driving a vehicle that was owned by the company and was issued a company credit card to purchase fuel for that vehicle. The dispute between the parties was whether the injuries sustained by the claimant occurred in the course and scope of his employment.
The Appeals Panel described the nature of the Hearing Officer’s error as follows:
In his discussion of the evidence, the hearing officer stated that the claimant was hired and was in training to be a warehouse technician for the to-be-opened city 1 warehouse, but was needed temporarily to work on site at the city 2 warehouse. The hearing officer found that at the time of his injury, the claimant was “in the furtherance of the business affairs of the employer” and that the “[c]laimant’s work activities originated in the business affairs of the employer.” However, a review of the record reflects that there was no evidence that the claimant was only working at the city 2 warehouse temporarily while awaiting the opening of the city 1 warehouse, but rather had been hired to work at the city 2 warehouse even though he lived in city 1. There was no evidence in the record that the employer was building a warehouse in city 1.
The Hearing Officer’s description of the facts was wrong. According to the Appeals Panel, “There was no evidence in the record that the employer was building a warehouse in city 1.” Therefore, the Appeals Panel reasoned, “The hearing officer applied his legal analysis regarding whether the claimant was injured in the course and scope of employment to inaccurate facts.” For this reason, the Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Hearing Officer that the claimant was injured in the course and scope of his employment and remanded the case in order for the Hearing Officer to apply legal reasoning to the facts as they had been developed at the contested case hearing.
This decision appears to represent an effort by the Appeals Panel to rein in Hearing Officers who “hear” the facts they want to hear, rather than the facts that have been developed by the parties through sworn testimony at the hearing. It’s a welcome development.
FOLIO
