HOUSTON – On Nov. 30, 2023, a Texas appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment to deny a Harris County deputy sheriff's worker's compensation case, citing inadequate briefing and lack of substantive legal arguments.
According to court documents, the complaint pertains to a workers' compensation case (No. 01-22-00476-CV) between Keith E. Royston, a Harris County deputy sheriff, and Harris County concerning additional injuries claimed during a functional capacity evaluation (FCE).
In his complaint, Royston claims that he was injured on Jan. 19, 2017, when he slipped and fell at work, resulting in injuries to his left leg, left arm, and neck. Royston subsequently underwent surgery on his left knee and received physical therapy. The dispute arose when, during an FCE months later, Royston claimed right calf strain and right knee effusion, alleging eligibility for workers' compensation benefits for these "follow-on injuries."
Harris County contested the extension of Royston's compensable injury to the claimed right calf strain and right knee effusion. A hearing with the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) followed, where the hearing officer determined that Royston's compensable injury indeed extended to the additional injuries. The DWC appeals panel upheld this decision.
The parties' subsequent appeals were assigned to different Harris County courts, with Royston's appeal (Cause No. 2019-20543) challenging issues such as maximum medical improvement and impairment rating. Harris County's appeal (Cause No. 2019-20700) contested the extent of the compensable injury, specifically the additional injuries claimed by Royston.
Despite a joint motion to consolidate the two appeals, the consolidation process was not clearly achieved, leading to procedural complexities. The District Court eventually ruled in favor of Harris County, affirming the DWC decision on certain issues but reversing the decision on the extent of injury. Royston appealed, but the Court of Appeals, citing inadequate briefing and a lack of substantive legal arguments, affirmed the trial court's judgment, effectively concluding the case.