Court Opinion

ID: 9647433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:36:19.649101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:42.274683
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion in this case, but I write separately because I cannot agree with its criticism of Tex.R.Civ.P. 93. That this is the only case where an appellate court has been asked to construe the interplay between Rule 93(13)(b) and (g) indicates to me that compensation carriers have not found the verification requirement an “intolerable burden” heretofore. Generally, a carrier receives notice of the employee’s claim for compensation at the same time, or shortly after, it is filed with the IAB (under the old law). An employee of the carrier would have personal knowledge if such notice were not received and could easily make an affidavit so reflecting. As the majority correctly points out, the purpose of requiring verification in compensation cases is to encourage identification of areas which are truly contested, while compelling the parties to stipulate those areas where there is no controversy. I *374therefore see no urgent need to change the rule as it presently exists.