INA of Texas v. Briscoe

Texas Supreme Court

INA of Texas v. Briscoe

780 S.W.2d 786, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 110, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 124, 1989 WL 143258

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 29, 1989

DocketNo. C-9028

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 780 S.W.2d 786 (INA of Texas v. Briscoe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

INA of Texas v. Briscoe, 780 S.W.2d 786, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 110, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 124, 1989 WL 143258 (Tex. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This is a workers’ compensation case. Billy Eugene Briscoe was injured on the job on July 2, 1984, when a rock struck his left leg. Briscoe was taken to a hospital where he was treated and released that same day. Briscoe returned to work after July 4 and continued to work until September. Shortly thereafter, Briscoe sought medical attention for a herniated disk in his back. Briscoe brought this suit, alleging that the injured back was caused by the accident on July 2, 1984 and that the injury to his back has left him totally or partially incapacitated.

Although the jury found that Briscoe suffered an injury, it answered “no” to questions asking whether the injury was a producing cause of total or partial incapacity. Based on this verdict, the trial court rendered a take nothing judgment against Briscoe.

In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the jury findings on producing cause were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The court of appeals addressed this point by summarily stating:

[Tjhere is no dispute he sustained some disability, albeit minor. All of the medical evidence attributed some disability to the injury. We therefore sustain this point of error....

These conclusory statements do not •comport with the correct legal standard for reviewing factual sufficiency points of error. When reversing a trial court’s judgment after concluding the supporting evidence is insufficient, the court of appeals must detail the relevant evidence and clearly state why the evidence is factually insufficient. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex.1986); see also Sosa v. City of Batch Springs, 772 S.W.2d 71, 72 (Tex.1989). The court should state in what regard the contrary evidence greatly outweighs the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Id.

The court of appeals did not apply the Pool standard of review. It has not [787]*787detailed the evidence nor has it stated why the contrary evidence greatly outweighs the supporting evidence. A majority of this court, without hearing oral argument, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands this cause to that court for further consideration of the factual sufficiency point of error. Tex.R.App.P. 133(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

This is a workers’ compensation case. Billy Eugene Briscoe was injured on the job on July 2, 1984, when a rock struck his left leg. Briscoe was taken to a hospital where he was treated and released that same day. Briscoe returned to work after July 4 and continued to work until September. Shortly thereafter, Briscoe sought medical attention for a herniated disk in his back. Briscoe brought this suit, alleging that the injured back was caused by the accident on July 2, 1984 and that the injury to his back has left him totally or partially incapacitated.

Although the jury found that Briscoe suffered an injury, it answered “no” to questions asking whether the injury was a producing cause of total or partial incapacity. Based on this verdict, the trial court rendered a take nothing judgment against Briscoe.

In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the jury findings on producing cause were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The court of appeals addressed this point by summarily stating:

[Tjhere is no dispute he sustained some disability, albeit minor. All of the medical evidence attributed some disability to the injury. We therefore sustain this point of error....

These conclusory statements do not •comport with the correct legal standard for reviewing factual sufficiency points of error. When reversing a trial court’s judgment after concluding the supporting evidence is insufficient, the court of appeals must detail the relevant evidence and clearly state why the evidence is factually insufficient. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex.1986); see also Sosa v. City of Batch Springs, 772 S.W.2d 71, 72 (Tex.1989). The court should state in what regard the contrary evidence greatly outweighs the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Id.

The court of appeals did not apply the Pool standard of review. It has not [787]*787detailed the evidence nor has it stated why the contrary evidence greatly outweighs the supporting evidence. A majority of this court, without hearing oral argument, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands this cause to that court for further consideration of the factual sufficiency point of error. Tex.R.App.P. 133(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

780 S.W.2d 786, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 110, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 124, 1989 WL 143258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ina-of-texas-v-briscoe-tex-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack