# Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co. v. Mendiola Supreme Court of Texas, No. 23-0950 **Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co. v. Mendiola, No. 23-0950, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of a petition challenging an award of lifetime income benefits, writing that the case is not a good vehicle to decide whether courts must keep applying Travelers Insurance v. Seabolt's 1962 "total loss of use" test or the plain text of Labor Code section 408.161.** Practice areas: insurance, employment ## Key issues - Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of a petition challenging an award of lifetime income benefits, writing that the case is not a good vehicle to decide whether courts must keep applying Travelers Insurance v. Seabolt's 1962 "total loss of use" test or the plain text of Labor Code section 408.161. - He noted that a newer statute supersedes case law construing an older one, so a future case in which the choice between Seabolt and the current statute decides the outcome could warrant review. ## Factual History 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" (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 6-7). ## Procedural History 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 (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 1, 8). ## Issues Presented 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 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 10). ## Legal Arguments **Accident Fund (Petitioner):** the courts below wrongly applied *Seabolt*, an outdated test for a different statute and benefit (Petition for Review, PDF p. 9). **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 (Response to Petition, PDF p. 6). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Not applicable—the petition was denied. ## Practice Area Tags insurance, employment ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, denied with a concurring opinion (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-2). ## Amicus Involvement None noted ## Court's 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 (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 7-11). ## Disposition Petition for review denied. ## Vote Breakdown Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial of both petitions (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 2). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/23-0950. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.