Opinion filed July 9 , 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 12

- 00 295

- CV

__________ CHARLES EDWARD ROBINSON , Appellant

V. AUSTIN WILEY GARCIA , Appellee

On Appeal from the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 24732

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Austin Wiley Garcia sued Charles Edward Robinson, Appellant ; John S. Robinson, Appellant’s father ; and Sherry Ann Eaton for negligence in connection with a three

- vehicle collision. Garcia nonsuited Appellant’s father , and the t rial court granted Eaton’s summary judgment motion and severed her from this case

. At trial , t he jury awarded Garcia $1, 241 ,823. 83 in damages

. The trial court entered a2

final judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Appellant asserts six issues on appeal

. We reverse and remand for a new trial. Procedural History The week before trial, Appellant filed a motion to recuse the trial judge . T he trial judge referred the motion to the presiding judg e of the administrative region. T he presiding judge denied the motion without a hearing , and the case proceeded to trial

. Also prio r to trial, the trial court entered an order in relation to a motion in limine that Garcia had filed. In the order, the trial court indicated that certain items of evidence were not going to be admitted at the trial. During the trial, Appellant made offers of proof as to those item s of evidence. The trial court responded to the offers of proof with a comment that it did not intend to change any pretrial rulings , and it did not allow the items into evidence during the trial

. Evidence at Trial Garcia worked for Rent

- A

- Center (RAC) as a customer account representative. As a part of his job, Garcia took care of customer accounts and delivered furniture , which involved driving a big box truck and lifting heavy objects. While on a delivery assignment for RAC , Garcia stopped at an inters ection behind a pickup pulling a trailer. Eaton stopped her Chevrolet Lumina behind Garcia

. While the vehicles were thus positioned, Appellant drove his pickup into the back of Eaton’s car and pushed it underneath the back of the RAC box truck being driv en by Garcia. The box truck moved forward a couple of feet but did not strike the pickup or trailer in front of it; Garcia said that he had his foot on the brake. Garcia testified that he put the box truck in park, got out, and spoke to Eaton and Appellan t; everyone said that they were okay. Trooper Doug las Ray Masters arrived at the scene about forty

- five minutes later, and no one reported any injuries to him . Garcia told Trooper Masters that he was “perfectly okay

. ” Garcia drove to3

his last delivery l ocation for that day and delivered a dryer. He then returned to the RAC office to complet e paperwork about the accident. Garcia testified that , later that night , he began to feel stiffness in his neck and lower back

. Garcia also said that he had a radiating pain and a tingling sensation down his right leg. T he stiffness and pain interrupted his sleep and made it difficult for him to walk or sit for long periods of time ; he had to have his girlfriend help him from his bed. But Garcia did not go to the emergency room at any time after the accident and did not go see any medical personnel about his pain until several days after the accident . He did, however, report to work. Garcia went to see Dr. Peck, a chiropractor, who put Garcia on a work
rest riction , and he was not to lift more than ten pounds. Later, Garcia met with other chiropractors and orthopedic surgeons, including a specialist in treating neck pain. Garcia received massage therapy, heat therapy, ultrasound therapy, and physical therap y . He also learned exercises that would help to strengthen his core. Over the course of time that Garcia saw medical professionals, he had multiple MRIs of his neck and of his back. Garcia received prescription pain medication, muscle relaxers, and sleep ing pills

. He also received a cane. Doctors gave Garcia several steroid injections in his back and one in his neck. Approximately seven months after the accident, Dr. David W. Strausser performed surgery on Garcia’s back, but the surgery d id not allevia te Garcia’s pain. Appellant’s expert witness, Dr. Richard A. Suss , opined that Garcia should not have had back surgery. Dr. Strausser and Dr. Stephen Michael Sims both opined that Garcia would most likely continue to have pain in the future. Dr. Sims als o opined that Garcia would continue to take pain medication and receive injections but that, if those were not successful, he could get a spinal cord stimulator and, if that did not work, could have surgery in the future. Dr. Strausser opined that Gar cia might have another surgery.4

Garcia testified that he would have continued to work at RAC but that he had a work restriction and could not do any heavy lifting. Garcia continued to work at RAC for six weeks after the accident, but he testified that he coul d not perform his normal daily activities. Although Garcia worked more overtime hours before the accident, he continued to work overtime hours after the accident. In December 2007, RAC terminated Garcia’s employment when he did not complete and return do cuments that would have kept him on indefinite unpaid leave. Sometime after his surgery, Garcia got a job at a Pilot Travel Center ; he worked at a Wendy’s Restaurant that was located in the travel center

. A short time later, he got a job at a Radio Shack, which paid less than what he had made at RAC. Garcia’s economist, Dr. Thomas H. May o r, testified as to Garcia’s lost earning capacity in the past and future and opined about the present value cost of medical expenses incurred in the future. Defense coun sel questioned Garcia about the number of jobs he had held prior to the RAC job, but the trial court limited cross

- examination to questions on length of employment and pay rates . D efense counsel also was not allowed to inquire about other information in G arcia’s employment and Navy records even though the trial court allowed introduction of some of his Navy medical records. The jury, after a four

- day trial, found Appellant negligent and found that his negligence proximately caused the accident. The jury a warded Garcia $38,879.83 for past medical care expenses, $382,720 for future medical care expenses, $149,726 for past loss of earning capacity, $465,498 for future loss of earning capacity, $50,000 for past physical pain, $150,000 for future physical pain, $5,000 for past physical impairment, and nothing for future physical impairment. Appellant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a motion for new trial, and an alternative motion for remittitur

. T he trial court denied all three motion s.5 Issues Presented Appellant first challenges the trial court ’s exclusion of certain evidence

. In his second issue, Appellant challenges the jury charge. In his third issue , Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for new trial in which Appellant alleged incurable jury argument. In his fourth issue, Appellant challenge s , on legal and factual sufficiency grounds , the jury’s finding of future medical
expenses. In his fifth issue , Appellant assert s that t he evidence to support the jury’s findings of loss of both past and future earning capacity is legal ly and factual ly in sufficien t

. Appellant’s sixth issue is that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to recuse. Analysis Because legal sufficiency points require a reversal and rendition, if sustained, we will discuss those issues first. We will next address two of Appellant’s challenges to the exclusion of evidence and then address his final issue on the denial by the tria l court of his motion to recuse. A. Standard of Review In a legal sufficiency review, we review the evidence in a light that tends to support the disputed finding and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Bradford v. Vento , 48 S.W.3d 749, 75 4 (Tex. 2001). We “assess all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, indulging every reasonable inference in favor of the judgment.” City of Austin Police Dep’t v.
Brown , 96 S.W.3d 588, 593 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2002, pet. dism’d) (citing Associated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc. , 964 S.W.2d 276, 285

– 86 (Tex. 1998)). The no

- evidence challenge must fail if more than a scintilla of evidence supports the challenged finding. Wal

- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola , 121 S.W.3d6

735, 73 9 (Tex. 2003); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez , 997 S.W.2d 584, 588 (Tex. 1999). We may only sustain a legal sufficiency challenge when (1) the record discloses a complete absence of a vital fact, (2) the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from givi ng weight to the sole evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (3) the sole evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla, or (4) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of a vital fact. City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S. W.3d 802, 810 (Tex. 2005) (citing Robert W. Calvert, “ No Evidence” and “Insufficient Evidence” Points of Error , 38 T EX

. L. R EV

. 361, 362

– 63 (1960)). B. Issue Four: Future Medical Expenses Appellant complains that “no evidence” or factually insufficient eviden ce was adduced at trial to support the jury’s finding of future medical expenses. We require no precise evidence for a finding of future medical expenses but will uphold the jury’s finding as long as more than a scintilla of probative evidence supports it

. 1 Strahan v. Davis , 872 S.W.2d 828, 832

– 33 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1994, writ denied). “Testimony of a ‘reasonable medical probability’ by a medical expert is not a prerequisite to a recovery for future medical expenses.” Id. at 83 2 (citing Hughett v. Dwyre , 624 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.)). Thus, a plaintiff may testify as to his own physical health. See City of San Antonio v. Vela , 762 S.W.2d 314, 321 (Tex. App.

— S an Antonio 1988, writ denied). Texas follows the “reasonabl e probability rule” for future damages for personal injuries. Doctor v. Pardue , 186 S.W.3d 4, 20 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 200 5 , pet. denied) (citing Rosenboom Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. Machala , 995 S.W.2d 817, 828 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pe t. denied). “ Thus, to recover future medical expenses, a plaintiff must show that there is a reasonable probability that expenses resulting from the injury will be necessary in the future and

1 This case was transferred from the Tenth Court of Appeals , and under Rule 41.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we apply its precedent.7

the reasonable costs of such care. ” Id. The jury may determin e reasonable probability “by consideration of the substance of the testimony

. . . and . . . not . . . on semantics or on the use by [a] witness of any particular term or phrase.” Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Myers , 411 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Tex. 1966). We consider the immediacy of treatment of the plaintiff following the alleged cause of the injury , the breadth and scope of past treatment received for the injury and the success of that treatment , the plaintiff’s testimony about his injuries , his incurred medical exp enses , his medical condition at trial , his future prognosis , and any testimony on maximum medical improvement. Blankenship v. Mirick , 984 S.W.2d 771, 778

– 79 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1999, pet. denied); see also Strahan , 872 S.W.2d at 833. The Waco court has held t hat the absence of medical expert testimony on future medical expenses does not in and of itself result in legal or factual in sufficiency. Blakenship , 984 S.W.2d at 778; Strahan , 872 S.W.2d at 832. The Amarillo Court of Appeals and the San Antonio Court of Appeals agree with the proposition applied by the Waco court. See Vela , 762 S.W.2d at 320

– 21; Hughett , 624 S.W.2d at 405

– 06. Contrary to the argument put forth by Appellant, the Dallas Court of Appeals has not held otherwise . In Thate , the Dallas court opined that the preferred way to prove future medical expenses was through medical professional testimony about the kind of services required in the future and the reasonable value of those services. Thate v. Tex

. & Pac

. Ry

. Co. , 595 S. W.2d 591, 601 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Dallas 1980, writ dism’d ) ; see also Matbon, Inc. v. Gries , 288 S.W.3d 471, 485 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2009, no pet.) ; Nat ’ l Freight, Inc. v. Snyder , 191 S.W.3d 416, 422 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2006, no pet.)

. However, the Thate cour t did not take the position that such testimony was required

. Thate , 595 S.W.2d at 601

. Rather, the court stated that the only requirement was that there be evidence in the record as to the reasonable value of past medical services as well as to the prob able necessity of future medical treatment. Id.8

Jury Q uestion No. 2b asked the jury to determine “ [m] edical care expenses that, in reasonable probability,

. . . Garcia will incur in the future.” Both Dr. Strausser and Dr. Sims testified that they would base their answers on reasonable medical probability. Dr. Strausser testified that Garcia’s lower back pain would “most likely” continue in the future. Dr. Strausser performed the first surgery, which did not resolve Garcia’s pain, but Dr. Strausser did not testify that Garcia would have

a future surgery, only that he might have a fusion surgery

. Dr. Sims said that he relied on Garcia’s history and integrity for his belief that Garcia would have “chronic pa in for the rest of his life.” Dr. Sims testified that he “would predict [Garcia] would have definitely some sort of treatment in the future; and [the chronic pain management, spinal cord stimulator implant, and fusion
surgery were included in the ] range o f what that could be .” Dr. Sims told Garcia that Garcia was a candidate for a dorsal pain stimulator implant if continued steroid injections did not alleviate the pain. D r. Sims also testified that his plan for Garcia included a fusion surgery if he did not respond well to pain medication, injections, and the stimulator treatment. Dr. Sims testified that the cost for chronic pain management for Garcia, if Garcia filled his prescription and got three injections a year, was on the higher end of the $2,000 to $10,000 range. Dr. Sims also testified that , if those treatments failed to alleviate Garcia’s pain, a low estimate for the dorsal pain stimulator implant would be between $30,000 and $40,000 and that a fusion surgery would co st between $50,000 and $100 ,000. Dr. May o r testified that Garcia’s life expectancy was 79.5 years “based on U.S. Government statistics.” Garcia was thirty years old at the time of trial. If Garcia were to spend $10,000 a year, as the high end of his chronic pain management

treatme nt, from the time of trial to the end of his life, the total would be $465,440, according to Dr. May o r’s present value table. The jury’s award of $382,720 for future medical expenses falls within the range outlined by Dr. Sims. All of this9

evidence was s ome evidence of future medical expenses and is , therefore , legally sufficient. Because we are reversing and remanding this case on admissibility

- of

evidence issues, we need not address whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support the award of future medical expenses. We overrule I ssue F our insofar as it claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s findings as to loss of future medical expenses. C. Issue Five: Loss of Past and Future Earning Capacity The amount a plainti ff can recover for loss of earning capacity is the difference between the amount of money he was capable of earning before the injury, not what he actually earned, and the amount he is capable of earning after the injury. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. v. Cernat , 205 S.W.3d 110, 120 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2006, pet. denied) (citing McIver v. Gloria , 169 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Tex. 1943)); Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. v. Smoak , 134 S.W.3d 880, 903 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2004, pet. denied). 1. Assessment of Past and Future Earning Capacity The factfinder measures earning capacity by “what the worker’s capacity to earn a livelihood actually was, even if he or she had never worked in that capacity in the past.” Cernat , 205 S.W.3d at 120. The plaintiff must show his capacity to work before the injury , an impairment caused by the injury , and the extent of the loss of capacity resulting from the impairment. See Smoak , 134 S.W.3d at 903; Plainview Motels, Inc. v. Reynolds , 127 S.W.3d 21, 36 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2003, pet. denied) (citing De cker v. Latham , 446 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Tex. Civ. App.

— El Paso 1969, writ ref’d n.r.e.)). Post

- injury earnings are always uncertain, however, “and must be left largely to the sound judgment and discre tion of the jury. . . . If plaintiff’s earning capacity is not totally destroyed, but only impaired, the extent of his loss can best be shown by comparing his actual earnings before and after his injury.” McIver , 169 S.W.2d10

at 712. The plaintiff “must prove the amount of such dama ges with the degree of certainty to which it is susceptible.” Bonney v. San Antonio Transit Co. , 325 S.W.2d 117, 121 (Tex. 1959). “ [ T ] he jury should not be left to mere conjecture where facts appear to be available upon which the jury could base an intel ligent answer.” Id. The plaintiff, for example, must ordinarily show the amount of his fixed pay rate or salary if he received one. McIver , 169 S.W.2d at 712. The jury must use its “common knowledge and experience and sense of justice” to determine los t earning capacity. Id. at 713.

2. Loss of Earning Capacity in the Past The jury awarded Garcia $149,726 for “[l]oss of earning capacity sustained in the past.” Garcia was employed at RAC at the time of the accident. Garcia adduced evidence that he had wor ked at RAC before the accident and had suffered an injury and was impaired as a result of the accident ; he also provided evidence of his actual earnings before and after the accident. See Smoak , 134 S.W.3d at 903; Plainview Motels , 127 S.W.3d at 36. Garc ia presented payroll records from the jobs he held from the time of his accident to the time of trial. The payroll records showed that Garcia’s current earnings at Radio Shack were about forty

- five percent less than what he could earn at RAC

. These record s and Dr. May o r’s testimony show that, based on Garcia’s pay rate, average hours worked, and fringe benefits, Garcia could have made $179,628 from the time of the accident until trial if he had remained at RAC. Garcia actually made, from the time of the a ccident to the time of trial, a total of $29,902. What Garcia could have made over this period, had he stayed at RAC, minus what he actually made equals $149,726. The court in Smoak held that the economic expert did not err by basing the plaintiff’s earni ng capacity on six weeks of work as a welder because the plaintiff said that he was able to perform as a welder before the accident but not after the11

accident. Smoak , 134 S.W.3d 900

– 01. Garcia, similarly, was only working at RAC for a short time before t he accident. Garcia asserted that he could not continue to work at RAC. Dr. Strausser testified that he did not releas e Garcia to return to RAC after the accident. Defense counsel argued that Garcia’s work history did not support a finding that Garcia w ould have worked at RAC for decades because he had held most of his jobs for only a few months and had never held a job an ywhere for more than two years. The jury knew of Garcia’s capacity to work bot h before and after the accident; his sporadic, short

- ter m work history before his RAC job ; and his pay rate at RAC as compared to his other jobs. See Bonney , 325 S.W.2d at 121. Again, defense counsel asserted that Garcia’s employment history did not reflect that he would hold any job for a significant period of time; the jury chose to believe Garcia. We hold that legally sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to support the jury’s award of $149,726 in lost earning ca pacity in the past.

3. Loss of Earning Capacity in the Future The jury awarded Garcia $465,498 for “[l]oss of earning capacity that, in reasonable probability,

. . . Garcia will sustain in the future.” Garcia testified that the RAC job was the best job he had ever had. Th e job required heavy lifting, and Garcia showed that, after the accident, he was on a work restriction from heavy lifting. Garcia showed that he had worked at RAC before the accident and that an injury occurred as a result of the accident ; he also provided evidence of his actual earnings before and after the accident. See Smoak , 134 S.W.3d at 903; Plainview Motels , 127 S.W.3d at 36. Garcia submitted payroll records from Radio Shack , which showed that Garcia’s current earnings were about forty

- five percent less than what he could earn at RAC.12

Dr. May o r predicted Garcia’s work

- li fe expectancy, from the time of the accident, to be an additional 34.2 years based on general statistical information provided by the government. Dr. May o r’s table shows the present value calculation of Garcia’s earnings from the time of trial through the end of his work

- life expectancy. Garcia’s total lost wages, if the accident had completely incapacitated him from the time of trial to the end of his expected work life, would be $1,034,441, and forty

- five percent of that would be $465,498. Unlike Bonne y , evidence of Garcia’s “earnings or a monetary measure of his earning capacity prior to the injury” exists in the form of his payroll records from RAC

. See Bonney , 325 S.W.2d at 121. And unlike Millett , Dr. May o r did not “hypothesize how much [Garcia] co uld have earned had he [had another job that paid more money].” See Loyd Elec. Co. v. Millett , 767 S.W.2d 476, 483 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1989, no writ). More than a scintilla of evidence supports the jury’s finding on future loss of earning capacity.
B ecause we are reversing and remanding this case on admissibility

- of

- evidence issues, we need not address whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support the award s of either past or future loss of earning capacity. We overrule I ssue F ive insofar as it claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s findings as to loss of past and future earning capacity.
D. Issue One: Exclusion of Evidence Although t here are several evidentiary issues that Appellant questions in his first issu e, we will address only two of the m

. Those two instances deal with (1) the exclusion of some of Garcia’s Navy documents and employment history records and (2) the exclusion of some of Dr. Strausser’s testimony

.

1. Standard of Review We review Appellant’s evidentiary complaints under an abuse of discretion standard. See Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 220 (Tex. 2001). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable13

manner without reference to any guid ing rules or principles. Walker v. Gutierrez , 111 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex. 2003); Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W.2d 238, 241

–

42 (Tex. 1985). We will reverse only if the trial court’s decision constitute d an abuse of discretion and if harm occur red and probably resulted in an improper judgment. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 44.1(a); s ee Wal

- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson , 106 S.W.3d 718, 723 (Tex. 2003) ; Lone Star Gas Co. v. Lemond , 897 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. 1995) . We review the entire record to determine whet her an error is harmful. Interstate Northborough , 66 S.W.3d at 220.

2. Garcia’s Navy Documents and O ther Employment Records Appellant challenges the trial court’s exclusion of Garcia’s Navy records and some of the information from his Jack in the Box, Landmark Industries, and other employment records. Appellant attempted to introduce evidence to impeach Garcia’s credibility. But the trial court refused to admit evidence from his Navy records, except his Navy medical records, and refused to admit evidence of the alleged “ unadjudicated ” reasons about why Garcia left the Navy , one of which was Garcia’s admission of larceny and subsequent court martial, or why Garcia was
te rminated from other employment. Crimes involving moral turpitu de are those that involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation , or deliberate violence. In re G.M.P. , 909 S.W.2d 198, 208 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ). “Evidence of a crime, wrong , or other act is not admissible to prove a perso n’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. ” T EX

. R. E VID

. 404(b) (1) . But a witness’s credibility may be attacked at trial. T EX

. R. E VID

. 607. And, if a witness leaves a mis impression of law

- abiding character, then the witness may be impeached with prior bad acts, including charges, arrests, and allegations of wrongdoing. T EX

. R. E VID

. 609. Moreover, statements against interest, even though hearsay, are admissible. T EX

. R. E VID

. 80 3 (24)(A).14

Appellant made an offer of proof regarding the testimony he wanted to introduce, but was not allowed to, that dealt with Garcia’s Navy records. Garcia’s Navy records 2 indicated that he was separated under other than honorable conditions for misco nduct for unauthorized absence and breaking restriction, which was determined at a summary court martial where he pleaded guilty to all charges. See 10 U.S.C. § 886, art. 86 ( a bsence without leave), § 934, art. 134 ( g eneral article ). Garcia’s summary cour t martial punishment was thirty day s ’ confinement. The court martial charges arose from Garcia’s pattern of misconduct that included “underage” drinking and the commission of a serious offense: “larceny and wrongful appropriation,” a crime of moral turpitu de. Garcia’s nonjudicial punishment for the larceny was forty

- five days of restriction and forty

- five days of extra duties with a reduction in rank and pay grade and forfeiture of one

- half of a month’s pay for two months. Garcia’s Navy records reflected h e had admitted his guilt to all offenses, including the larceny, and had admitted that his conduct reflected a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense. Garcia waived all rights to the administrative discharge, including the right to counsel and the right to an administrative board hearing, and did not appeal. Garcia’s admissions against his interest, contained in his Navy records on wrong do ing, which led to his discharge, were admissible to impeach his credibility because he left the mis impression at trial that he and the Navy mutually agreed to allow him to end his enlistment early

. In addition, the court in Cameron Mill & Elevator Co. stated that the jury should determine earning capacity based on whether “ the plaintiff be afflicted in

2 Garcia’s records showed he had a five

- year enlistment, for which he received an enlistment bonus of $5,000 , and was selecte d for training in mess management. And, although he had completed mess training, had a “ s ecret” security clearance, and had served for five and one

- half months on the USS Tennessee , an Ohio

- class ballistic missile submarine, he ultimately only served a to tal of one year and nine months.15

mind or body, or if he be indolent, drunken, and thriftless, the defendant ought to be permitted to prove the fact, so as to show that his earning capacity is not that of a person of ordinary endowments, mental or physical, an d of ordinary habits

. ” Cameron Mill & Elevator Co. v. Anderson , 81 S.W. 282, 283 (Tex. 1904) (emphasis added). Evidence adduced at trial outlined that RAC had several requirements for the job that Garcia held, and those requirements included that Garcia had to (1) follow instructions, (2) follow all policies and procedures and adhere to all standards, (3) possess good customer

- oriented skills, (4) greet and assist customers and “ prospect for new business, ” and (5) maintain accurate records. Garcia was

wa rned about failing to adhere to attendance polices and was told that another incide nt could result in termination. In Garcia’s last performance evaluation in the Navy, his rater, D

. L

. Taylor, provided the following description of Garcia’s performance, which he characterized as a “one” on a one

- to

- five scale, with “one” being below standards, in part because Garcia needed excessive supervision. Taylor also noted that Garcia (1) failed to understand team goals and was wasteful of resources; (2) failed to take direction well and his work product often needed rework; (3) prioritized poorly and avoided responsibility ; (4) failed to value differences from cultural diversity; (5) had poor sel f

- control; (6) was unwilling to work with others and created conflict; (7) had a consistent unsatisfactory appearance; (8) was unable to meet one or more physical readiness standards ; (9) acted in a way counter to good order and Navy retention; and (10) fa iled to live up to one or more of the Navy’s Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment

. Garcia’s testimony left the jury with a false impression about his Navy service

. T he issues that he had while in the Navy also arose at Jack in the Box, Landmark I ndustries, and RAC. He was terminated from Jack in the Box under an accusation that he closed the store early without authorization. At Landmark16

Industries, he was accused of theft, the crime he admitted to committ ing in the Navy. Garcia also was on a “ C OMMIT! ” plan at RAC because he had been late for work several times and had show n up seventy

- three minutes late for work without authorization , similar issues to those that were present at the end of his Navy service. Appellant should have been allowed to correct the mis impressions Garcia left with the jury about his Navy service and about his other employment. The trial court abused its discretion when it did not allow him to do so

.

3. Exclusion of Dr. Strausser’s Testimony Appellant also challenges the trial court’s exclusion of portions of Dr. Strausser’s deposition in which Dr. Strausser was confronted with facts that Garcia had not told him when Garcia related his medical and wo rk history to Dr. Strausser

. For instance, Garcia had not told the doctor about a prior automobile collision in which he was involved . On that occasion, Garcia drove his vehicle into a horse

. His mother was riding with him and was injured. She ultimate ly sued him for those injuries. Additionally, Garcia did not tell Dr. Strausser that he continued to move and deliver furniture after the accident made the basis of this suit

. Although the jury heard that Garcia delivered furniture for RAC after the accid ent, the jury was not able to hear the opinion that Dr. Strausser gave in his deposition that the prior accident with the horse or the work duties following the RAC accident may have been the cause of the disc herniation. Garcia conceded that Dr. Strausser’s records showed that the disc herniation, which Garcia alleged was caused by the RAC accident, did not actually occur at the time of that accident. Dr. Strausser’s testimony should have been allowed at trial as part of Appellant’s

cross

- examination of Dr. Strausser. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded this evidence

. I f evidence presents “other plausible causes of the injury or condition that could be negated, the [proponent of the testimo ny] must offer evidence excluding17

those causes with reasonable certainty.” Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump , 330 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Tex. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner , 953 S.W.2d 706, 720 (Tex. 1997) ) (internal quotat ion marks omitted) ( citing E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 558

– 59 (Tex. 1995) ). In the instant case, the opposite occurred

. Dr. Strausser opined, in his deposition testimony , 3 that the RAC accident di d not cause the herniation

. W hen defense counsel apprised Dr. Strausser of the prior accident and Garcia’s post

accident work duties, Dr. Strausser stated, in his deposition , that those could be possible causes of Garcia’s disc herniation

. The trial court did not allow the jury to hear that evidence . W hen it excluded the evidence , the trial court erred and abused its discretion.

4. Whether Trial Court’s Exclusion of Evidence Requires Reversal A person seeking to reverse a judgment based on evidentiary error need not prove that , but f

or the error , a different judgment would necessarily have been rendered, but need only prove that the error probably resulted in an improper judgment. City of Brownsville v. Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. 1995) (citing McCraw v. Maris , 828 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex. 1992); King v. Skelly , 452 S.W.2d 691, 696 (Tex. 1970)). We review the entire record to see if the judgment turned on the excluded evidence. Id. at 754

. The jury was left with a misimpression of Garcia’s Navy service and other work history. The jury did not know all of the reasons for his multiple job changes, including his record from the Navy that included his admissions of larceny and other misconduct. The jury only heard from Garcia , who suggested that he intended to work at RAC for his entire life

. Appellant was n ot allowed to cross

- examine Garcia

3 Dr. Strausser also noted in Garcia’ s medical records, which were admitted at trial, that the accident did not cause the disc herniation , but Dr. Strausser’s response s to the “did you know questions” were excluded.18

with the excluded evidence. All of this excluded evidence, if it had been admitted, would have cast additional doubt on Garcia’s capacity for duration, consistency, and efficie ncy of work , which relate to his ability to hold the RAC job uninterrupted for more than three decades. In addition, the exclusion of Dr. Strausser’s testimony about other possible causes for the disc herniation, which Garcia alleged was the source of his pain and the medical problem that led to his surgery , was likewise not only erroneous but also harmful. See JLG Trucking, LLC v. Garza , No. 13

- 0978, 2015 WL 1870072, at *4 (Tex. Apr. 24, 2015) (not yet released for publication)

. After a review of the ent ire record, we hold that the exclusion of evidence probably resulted in an improper judgment. We sustain that part of Appellant’s first issue in which he claims that the trial court reversibly erred when it refused to admit the p r offered testimony about
t he Navy records and the excluded testimony from Dr. Strausser

. E. Issue Six: Motion to Recuse Appellant asserts , in his sixth issue, that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to recuse because the motion failed to meet the requirements of Rule 18a and Rule 18b

. We review the denial of a motion to recuse under an abuse of discretion standard. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). A motion to recuse must “assert one or more of the grounds listed in Rule 18b” and must “sta te with detail and particularity facts that : (A) are within the affiant’s personal knowledge, [or] on information and belief if the basis for that belief is specifically stated; (B) would be admissible in evidence; and (C) if proven, would be sufficient
to justify recusal or disqualification .” T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 18a(a) (2), (4). Grounds for recusal include reasonably questioned impartiality of the judge and personal bias or prejudice of the judge concerning the subject matter or a party. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 18b( b)(1) , (2). The responding judge must then recuse himself or refer the motion to the regional presiding judge. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 18a(f). The regional19

presiding judge may summarily deny the motion without a hearing if the motion does not comply with Rule 18a. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 18a(g)(3). Appellant complained in his motion to recuse that the trial judge ruled against Appellant several times at a pretrial hearing and subsequently made the statement that , “when I was a real lawyer, Farmers [Insurance] could be counted on to make a fair offer.” He also argues that a letter from Garcia’s counsel supports his argument. Appellant conceded in his mot ion that the trial judge knew both that Farmers was the insurance company involved and that the matter had not been successfully resolved at mediation before he made his statement. But Appellant produced no evidence that the trial judge knew of the settlem ent offer amounts. The trial judge also did not say that the offer at mediation was fair or unfair; he only related his past experience. Thus, his statement did not show partiality or a bias for or against any party or subject matter. His statement foll ows Texas policy to encourage parties to resolve their issues without litigation. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 154.002 (West 2011 ) (“It is the policy of this state to encourage the peaceable resolution of disputes.”); Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Swanson , 959 S.W.2d 171, 178 (Tex. 1997) (“Texas law favors and encourages voluntary settlements and orderly dispute resolution

. ”). The trial judge’s statement was not sufficient to justif y recusal or disqualification. We hold that the regional presidin g judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied the motion to recuse without a hearing because , even if Appellant’s allegations had been presented at a hearing , those allegations would not have justified recusal. Issue Six is overruled. Conclusion A ft er a review of the record, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited the admission of evidence about Garcia’s Navy service and other employment history , as well as the complained

- of portions of Dr. Strausser’s deposition that dealt with the prior accident, and that the refusal to admit those items20

of evidence resulted in harmful error. To that extent I ssue O ne is sustained , and w e need not address the remainder of the matters raised in I ssue O ne. Because we are reversing and remanding on those evidentiary grounds, we need not address either I ssue T wo or I ssue T hree. We also hold that legally sufficient evidence support ed the jury’s award of future medical expenses , loss of earning capacity in the past, and loss of earning capacity in the future , and we overrule I ssues F our and F ive to that extent

. Because we are remanding on other issues, we do not reach the factual sufficiency arguments in I ssues F our and F ive. Finally, Appellant’s sixth issue is overruled. This Court’s Ruling We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this ca u se for a new trial.

MIKE WILLSON JUSTICE

July 9, 2015 Panel consists of: W right , C.J., W illson, J

. , and Bailey, J.