Sec. 410.307. SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CONDITION. (a) Evidence of the extent of impairment is not limited to that presented to the division if the court, after a hearing, finds that there is a substantial change of condition. The court's finding of a substantial change of condition may be based only on:
(1) medical evidence from the same doctor or doctors whose testimony or opinion was presented to the division;
(2) evidence that has come to the party's knowledge since the contested case hearing;
(3) evidence that could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence by the party; and
(4) evidence that would probably produce a different result if it is admitted into evidence at the trial.
(b) If substantial change of condition is disputed, the court shall require the designated doctor in the case to verify the substantial change of condition, if any. The findings of the designated doctor shall be presumed to be correct, and the court shall base its finding on the medical evidence presented by the designated doctor in regard to substantial change of condition unless the preponderance of the other medical evidence is to the contrary.
(c) The substantial change of condition must be confirmable by recognized laboratory or diagnostic tests or signs confirmable by physical examination.
(d) If the court finds a substantial change of condition under this section, new medical evidence of the extent of impairment must be from and is limited to the same doctor or doctors who made impairment ratings before the division under Section 408.123.
(e) The court's finding of a substantial change of condition may not be made known to the jury.
(f) The court or jury in its determination of the extent of impairment shall adopt one of the impairment ratings made under this section.
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 265 (H.B. 7), Sec. 3.207, eff. September 1, 2005.
Notes of Decisions
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Manasco, 971 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. 1998).
· cites it 12× “The issue in this case is whether a workers' compensation claimant who failed to appeal his original impairment rating can reopen the issue months later by arguing, under Texas Labor Code section 410.307, that a "substantial change of condition" has occurred.”
Fulton v. Associated Indem. Corp., 46 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001).
“307 to allow the district court to consider evidence of Manasco’s substantial change of condition, even though he had failed to appeal the initial impairment rating from the contested case hearing. The issue presented to the supreme court was: “[Wjhether a workers’ compensation…”
State Off. of Risk Mgmt. v. Elaine E. Banks Joiner, 363 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012).
“The intent of the rule is to foreclose the imposition of an impairment rating based on a substantial change of condition after the date of maximum medical improvement.”
Centre Ins. Co. v. Pollitt, 242 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007).
“Pollitt responds that the Commission may lack the authority to reevaluate an impairment rating after two years but that trial courts have the authority to do so pursuant to Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 410.307 (Vernon 2006).”
Manasco v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 951 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997).
· cites it 2× “This appeal requires judicial interpretation of a section of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 410.307 (Vernon 1996): § 410.”
Rodriguez v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co., 961 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997).
“She asserts that because she was entitled to a substantial change of condition hearing, she was entitled to have a doctor designated to resolve any dispute concerning her substantial change of condition under Tex Lab.Code ANN. § 410.307(b) (Vernon 1996).”
Joyce L. Jones v. Mansfield Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 02-24-00355-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 15, 2025).
· cites it 2× “6 Jones’s statement that “[t]he district court ha[d] jurisdiction over this case because this is a workers[’] compensation case where the evidence of a video of the accident was not provided” was the closest that she came to addressing the relevant jurisdictional issues.”
Donald Fulton v. Ass'n Indem. Corp., No. 03-00-00449-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 12, 2001).
“307 to allow the district court to consider evidence of Manasco's substantial change of condition, even though he had failed to appeal the initial impairment rating from the contested case hearing. The issue presented to the supreme court was: "[W]hether a workers' compensation…”
Tex. Lab. Code § 410.307(a): 4 cases
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Manasco, 971 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. 1998).
“The issue in this case is whether a workers' compensation claimant who failed to appeal his original impairment rating can reopen the issue months later by arguing, under Texas Labor Code section 410.307, that a "substantial change of condition" has occurred.”
Manasco v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 951 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997).
“This appeal requires judicial interpretation of a section of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 410.307 (Vernon 1996): § 410.”
Tex. Lab. Code § 410.307(a)(1): 1 case
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Manasco, 971 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. 1998).
“The issue in this case is whether a workers' compensation claimant who failed to appeal his original impairment rating can reopen the issue months later by arguing, under Texas Labor Code section 410.307, that a "substantial change of condition" has occurred.”
Tex. Lab. Code § 410.307(b): 1 case
Rodriguez v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co., 961 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997).
“She asserts that because she was entitled to a substantial change of condition hearing, she was entitled to have a doctor designated to resolve any dispute concerning her substantial change of condition under Tex Lab.Code ANN. § 410.307(b) (Vernon 1996).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.