Heinsohn v. Trans-Con Adjustment Bureau

• Decision Date: 13 February 1997
• Docket Number: No. 2-96-157-CV,TRANS-CON,2-96-157-CV
• Citation: 939 S.W.2d 793
• Parties: Robert HEINSOHN, Appellant, v.ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 793

939 S.W.2d 793

Robert HEINSOHN, Appellant, v. TRANS-CON ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, Appellee.

No. 2-96-157-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Fort Worth.

Feb. 13, 1997.

Rehearing Overruled May 15, 1997.

John Wright, Tina M. Colwell, Grand Prairie, for appellant.

Mark L. Greer, Fort Worth, for appellee.

Before LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT and HOLMAN, JJ.

OPINION

HOLMAN, Justice.

Robert Heinsohn sued his former employer, Trans-Con Adjustment Bureau, alleging that he suffered a work-related injury and that the company wrongfully terminated his employment because the owner anticipated that the injury would result in a workers' compensation claim. As soon as Heinsohn rested his case, the trial court granted the company's motion for a directed verdict on grounds that there was no evidence of damages. Heinsohn appeals. We reverse and remand.

Retaliatory Discharge

Heinsohn based his cause of action on the provisions of article 8307c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes ¹:

No person may discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has in good faith filed a claim, hired a lawyer to represent him in a claim, instituted, or caused to be instituted, in good faith, any proceeding under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding.

Act of April 20, 1971, 62nd Leg., R.S., ch. 115, 1971 Tex.Gen.Laws 884, amended by Act of May 12, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 269, § 1, 1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 1235 (current version at TEX.LABOR CODE ANN. § 451.001 (Vernon 1996)). The purpose of the statute is to protect persons who are entitled to benefits under the workers' compensation statute and to prevent them from being discharged because they take steps to collect the benefits. Carnation Co. v. Borner, 610 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex.1980).

Whether there is a causal connection between an employee's termination and claim for workers' compensation benefits is a fact question on which the employee has the burden of proof by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Palmer v. Miller Brewing Co., 852 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1993, writ denied). Evidence of a causal connection can include the employer's knowledge of the claim and a negative attitude by the employer toward the employee's injured condition. Id. Once the employee establishes a causal link between the claim and the termination, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the allegations by showing a legitimate reason for the discharge. Id. Moreover, when an employer knows an employee is injured, the employer may not frustrate the purposes of the workers' compensation law by discharging the employee before the claim can be filed. Mid-South Bottling Co. v. Cigainero, 799 S.W.2d 385, 389 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1990, writ denied). Merely by the act of notifying the employer of the injury, an injured employee takes steps toward "instituting a compensation proceeding" within the meaning of the statute. Palmer, 852 S.W.2d at 61; Worsham Steel Co. v. Arias, 831 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1992, no writ).

Evidence

The evidence shows that in December, 1989, the company employed Heinsohn as its collections manager. He alleged and testified that while seated and working at his office desk on October 8, 1990, a leg of his chair broke and he fell backward, injuring his back. Heinsohn testified that the company's owner overheard him say the words "workman's comp," and then:

[The owner] come flying out of his office, shook his finger in my face like this and said, "You make a workman's comp claim, you're fired."

And I laughed when he said that because at that point I had no--I mean, it was a nonissue. And he says, "You think I'm joking? I'll give you a list of the people I've fired for trying to make comp claims against me."

On the morning of October 15, 1990, Heinsohn told the owner that because of continuing discomfort from the back injury, he would have to see a physician and file a workers' compensation claim. Later the same afternoon, his employment was terminated.

Damages Claimed

Without detailing all of the evidence on damages, we note that Heinsohn testified that the termination of employment canceled his employee medical and dental benefits, and that the insurer refused to pay $2,000 for dental work he had done before he was discharged, and that he incurred another $9,000 in medical bills that he said would have been covered by the terminated insurance. Entries included in a Texas Employment Commission eligibility review form introduced by the company's attorney and admitted in evidence during Heinsohn's cross-examination show that Heinsohn left the company because he was "fired," and that his monthly pay rate at the company had been $2,700. He testified that he received unemployment compensation for only two weeks because he was injured and unable to work regularly, and he told the jury about temporary jobs he had held after the company terminated him, and about the length of time he was out of work. The company's attorney also questioned Heinsohn about a Texas Employment Commission computer printout in evidence that listed a total of $4,886.74 in wages he received from the temporary jobs that followed his discharge by the company. Heinsohn's testimony was heard without objection and was uncontroverted.

The Company's Motion for Directed...