Rodrigo Mendiola was severely burned when asphalt from the truck he was driving spilled into the cabin; his left leg was amputated above the knee and his left hand was left so scarred that it functions only "like a club".¹

The Division of Workers' Compensation ruled that Mendiola did not have "total and permanent loss of use" of his left hand; after a bench trial the Nueces County Court at Law No. 3 reversed, awarded lifetime income benefits and $430,000 in attorney's fees, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed (2023 WL 6631948, Oct. 12, 2023). Accident Fund General Insurance filed its petition January 26, 2024; the Court denied it February 7, 2025.¹

Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, denied with a concurring opinion.²

Whether courts should apply the plain meaning of "total . . . loss of use" in Labor Code section 408.161 and require proof that all hand functions are lost, or the Seabolt test, which allows recovery for loss of "substantial utility" or inability to get and keep a job requiring the hand.¹

Accident Fund (Petitioner): the courts below wrongly applied Seabolt, an outdated test for a different statute and benefit.¹

Mendiola (Respondent): Seabolt and its progeny remain controlling law, the Legislature has never changed the rule, and Accident Fund did not preserve its objection because it told the trial court Seabolt was the proper standard.²

Not applicable⁠—the petition was denied.

None noted

Reasoning

Justice Young agreed Accident Fund raised a serious argument that courts ignored a statute in favor of an older, judge-made standard, and that a newer statute supersedes case law interpreting an older one. But under either Seabolt or section 408.161, Mendiola's hand qualifies, so the standards do not compete on this record and the Court's guidance would be better given in a case where the choice matters.¹

Disposition

Petition for review denied.

Vote Breakdown

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of both petitions.²