Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): charges for work related to preparation of the discovery requests that were served on Awoniyi on September 11, 2006. Nor, however, does she state that the requested fee does not include such charges. Work related to the discovery requests could constitute “defense of th[e] case,” which the hospital’s attorney testified constitutes a basis for the incurred fee. Further, the affidavit testimony is dated October 17, 2006, more than a month after service of the discovery requests on Awoniyi. Under these circumstances, we cannot exclude the possibility that preparation of the discovery requests forms the basis for some portion of the awarded fee. Evidence of unsegregated fees constitutes more than a scintilla of evidence of segregated attorney’s fees. Stewart Title, 822 S.W.2d at 12 (<HOLDING>). Where a fee award is erroneously based on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law (B) holding that a public administrator was not entitled to attorneys fees in a claim against the estate of a former guardian where the case was not one where attorneys fees were authorized and there was no evidence to support the award (C) holding that unsegregated attorneys fees must be remanded (D) holding that where plaintiff sought recovery of fees against multiple defendants evidence of unsegregated fees was more than a scintilla of evidence to support fee award what a reasonable attorneys fee would be for the entire case indicates what the segregated amount  should be (E) holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees
Output (English): holding that unsegregated attorneys fees must be remanded