Court OKs workers' comp for former NFL star

Last July, the 10th Court of Appeals in Waco rejected former Dallas Cowboys defensive lineman Chad Hennings' workers' compensation claim, holding that professional athletes essentially cannot claim workers' comp. But after seeking a rehearing of the matter before the 10th Court, Hennings -- who has three Super Bowl rings from his nine-year football career but retired after a serious spine injury in 2000 -- has won in overtime. Reversing its previous stance, the 10th Court held on Jan. 30 that the 393rd District Court in Denton County did not err in finding that Hennings was eligible for benefits, because he was disabled as a result of a compensable injury and the benefits under his contract and collective bargaining agreement were not equal to or greater than the benefits available under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. "It gives you a little faith that a motion for rehearing can have an impact," says John Collins, a partner in the Dallas firm Burleson, Pate & Gibson. He represents Hennings, who recovered from spinal surgery in 2000 but is worried about future complications. While the court's previous opinion deemed Hennings' contractual package of salary and medical benefits to be higher than benefits available under workers' comp, thus rendering Hennings ineligible for such benefits under Texas Labor Code §406.095, the court reversed itself and found workers' comp to be a better deal because of its potentially unlimited duration. "[T]he jury could reasonably infer," the 10th Court stated in its opinion, "that having [workers' compensation benefits] was greater than the medical benefits [Hennings] had received from his employment, while considering that he had no future medical benefits as a result of the Cowboys' termination of the employment contract." Barry Hasten, a partner in Hasten & Hansen in Arlington who represents Gulf Insurance Co., the Cowboys' insurance carrier, says that he is surprised by the 10th Court's reversal: "Their other opinion was very straightforward." Hasten says that on behalf of his client he will seek Texas Supreme Court review of the 10th Court's decision.
-- Jonathan Fox