Transcontinental Insurance Co. v. Crump

Although I agree the trial court erred by giving a definition of “producing cause” that did not include a “but for” element, I respectfully disagree with part of section III of the Court’s opinion.

For three reasons, including both procedural and substantive matters, I do not agree with the Court’s holding that the producing cause definition in worker’s compensation cases must include “substantial factor” language.1 First, Transcontinental did not request the substantial factor language in the trial court. Second, the causation standard for worker’s compensation is statutory and the causation…