NO. 07-01-0365-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D JANUARY

31, 2002

______________________________

JERRY POO L, Appellant
v. KIRKLAND CO NSTRUCTION C O. and KIRKLAND CO NSTRUCTION, R .L.L.P., Appellees

_________________________________ FROM THE 181 ST DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. 84-613-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, J.J. JerryPool (Pool) appeals from a f inal summary judgment. Via his sole poin t o f error, he contends that t he trial cour t erred in g ranting same in fav or of Kirkland C onstruction Company and Kirkland Construction, R.L.L .P. (collectively referre d to a s Kirkland). This is allegedly so because Kirkland “faile d to uphold his b urden of showi ng that[Pool] was not terminated for his j ob because he filed a worker’ s compensation claim.” We af firm the summary judgment.2 Standard o f Review The standards of rev iew appli cable to tradi tional and no ev idenc e motio ns for summary judgment are well-s ettl ed. R athe r, th an di scus s the m at l engt h now, we simply cite the parties to Nixon v. M r. Property

Management Co. , 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex

. 1985) and Kimber v. Sideris , 8 S.W.3d 672, 675 (Tex. App.-- Amarillo 1999, no pet.) for a general ex planation of same. Next, the mova nt requ est ing judg ment is free to ass ert as many grounds as he chooses. Should he raise several and the court fail to state upon w hich it rel ied in gr anting rel ief, an additional o bstacle confronts the non-movant. It falls upon the latter, on a ppeal, to address each g round asserted and establish why i t was ins ufficientto support jud gment. Miller v. Galveston /

Houston Diocese , 911 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex. App.–Amar illo 1995, no writ); Lee v. Levi Str

auss & Co. , 897 S.W .2d 501, 504 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1995, no writ). Failing to do this enti tles the rev iewing court to affirm on any unaddressed g round. Miller v. Galveston / Houston Diocese , 911 S.W.2d at 899. Applicatio n of Stan dard Atbar, Kirkl and alleged amyriad of grounds for su mmary judg ment. Two inv oked the “no eviden ce” prov ision of Rule 16 6a(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Through them, Kirkland averred that there existed no evidence that 1) Poo l was wrongfully terminated, 2) Kirkl and unlawfullydiscriminated against Pool “in connection with [Pool’s] employment,” 3) Kirkland “‘a t tempted to prev ent [Pool] from receiving medical treat ment

. . .,’” asalleged by

Pool, 4) Kirkland “w rongfully discrimin ated against [ Pool] by r efusing to assist [Pool ] in filling out certain di sability insurance paper

s,” as asser

ted by Pool, and3

5) Pool “sustained any damages fo r loss of wages and benefits, inconveni ence, or mental ang uish as [Pool] cl aimed . . . .” So too did the movant contend that “ as a matter of la w

. . . [Pool] . . . s ustained no compensab le damages caus ed or contri buted to by thealleged conduct of” Kirkland. And, in support of this ground , Kirkland c ited to summary judgment evidence attached to its moti on. On appeal, however, none of the foregoing grounds were addressed or rebutted in any way by Pool. He di d not argue tha t he had presented some evidenc e s ufficient to rebut the allegations of Kirkland and e stablish his cause of action. See Kimber v. Sideris , 8 S.W.3d at 675 (stating th a t it is the non-movant’s burden to presen t some evidence establishing a question of material fact to d efea t a no-evidence motion fo r summary judgment). Nor did he assert that theallegatio ns of Kirkland d id no t w arrant summary judgment

irrespect ive of whe ther he presented some evidence. Instead, he mer ely arg ued thathis opponents fail ed to prove t hat he was not terminate d for pursui ng a worker’s compensation claim, i.e. , that Kirkl and discharg ed him for a legitimate, non-discriminato ry reason. More importantly, this is fatal to his appeal because the tri al judge di d notspec ify in its summary

judgment the g rounds upon which it acted. Thus, Pool had the burd en on appeal to illustr

ate why none of the grounds encomp assed in Kirkland’ s motion warranted summary judgment, and because he did not, we must affirm on t he grounds w hich went unaddressed. Miller v. Galveston / Houston Diocese , supra . Accordingl y, we affirm the summary j udgment.
Brian Quinn Justice Do Not Publi sh.