A Baytown man is asking the Jefferson County District Court to review a workers’ compensation decision rendered against him, saying his injuries are just and he should be compensated for them.


Anthony Whitehurst filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a workers’ compensation decision July 9 in the Jefferson County District Court against Texas Mutual Insurance Co. 


In his complaint, Whitehurst alleges he was diagnosed with a cervical sprain Nov. 27, 2006, and with trigger finger injuries on March 26, 2007. On May 4, 2007, Texas Mutual Insurance disputed that Whitehurst should not receive compensation for his trigger finger injuries, arguing it was not part of the injury he received while working.


During an April 16, 2013, hearing, the Texas Department of Insurance agreed to accept the previously disputed trigger finger injuries as part of the compensable injury, according to the complaint. In turn, Whitehurst sought to have the related medical procedures compensated, the suit states.


However, a hearing officer held that the matter had already been tried and the Texas Department of Insurance did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue, the complaint says.


Whitehurst contends the recent agreement to add trigger finger injuries as part of the compensable injury allows the Department of Insurance to treat the issue as a separate case. Therefore, the department should be able to adjudicate the case, according to the complaint.


Whitehurst seeks a finding that res judicata does not prohibit a second hearing. He also seeks a finding that res judicata does not apply because Texas Mutual Insurance Co. fraudulently disputed the compensability of the trigger finger injuries.


He is appearing pro se.


Jefferson County District Court case number D-195871



This is a report on a civil lawsuit filed at the Jefferson County District Court. The details in this report come from an original complaint filed by a plaintiff. Please note that a complaint represents an accusation by a private individual, not the government. It is not an indication of guilt, and it represents only one side of the story.

More News