### NU MBE R 1 3 - 0 7 - 0 0 4 5 1 - CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS C O R PU S C H R IST I - 

## EDI NBURG O L D R E P U B L I C I N S U R AN C E C O M P AN Y , Ap p e l l a n t, v. ED W A R D W EEK S, A ppel l ee.

O n a p p e a l fr o m th e 2 5 3 rd D i s tr i c t C o u rt of Li bert yC ount y , T exas. 

## ME MO RA N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Yañez , R odr i guez , and B enav i des M em or andum O pi ni on byJust i ce R odr i guez Appel lan t O ld Rep ubl icIns urance Compan y appeal s t he di str ict c our t' s j udg ment ent ered in fa v or of

app ellee Ed w ard W eeks f inding tha t W eeks su f fered a com pen sable wor kpl ace inj ur

y and re sul ti ng di sabi li ty and that he w a s e n ti tl ed to ac cr ued i nterestand cos ts. W eeks had obtai ned an adv erse deci si on from a Tex as W or kers' C ompensat ion Co m m is s io n (TW CC) hea ring of f icer; the T W CC appe als pan el had subse quentlyI t i s u n c o n tro v e rte d t h a t W e e k s fi l e d h i s a d m i n i s tra ti v e a p p e a l o n A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 0 5
. H o w e v e r, th e fa c ts 1 r el at ed t o whet herW eeks' s adm i ni st r at i v e ap peal was t i m el yar e di sput ed b yt he p ar t i es. 2 dism issed W eeks's ap pea l as untim ely. W eeks so ught judicial revie w of the ap pea ls panel 's dec is ion i n di str ict cour t. Ol d R epubl icappeal s from the dis tr ict c our t' s j udg ment arg uin g thatthe di str ict cour t lac ked jur is dicti on ov er W eeks 's appeal a nd c ontes ti ng the di s tr i ct c ou rt' s j ud g me nto n th e me r i tso f W ee k s ' s c l ai ms . W e affi r m. I. BACKGROUND At the time o f

trial, W eeks was emp loyed byR o a dway Ex press (Road w ay)as a li ne- haul dr iv er . In 20 04, W eeks an d h is d ri v ing par tner Pet e M il lne r w ere bas ed outof Ro a d w ay 's H oust on te rmi nal and drov e a reg ula r ro ute t o and from Val dost a, G eorg ia. Mill ner an d W eeks d ro v e ten -hou r shift s; w hen one man was driv ing, the oth er would sl e e p . On September 14, 2004, W eeks and Mi ll ner were on thei r re tur n tr ip back to Housto n w hen Mil lner called to W eeks f rom th e f ront of the cab , informin g W eeks th at it w as his tur n to d r i v e. W he n W ee k s j um pe d ou t of t he b un ki n th e s l ee pe r b er th , he felt a s ev ere pai n i n the r ig ht s ide of hisbac k radi ati ng i nto h is r ig ht l eg . Af ter his wo rk e rs ' comp ensa tion claim was de nied byOld Repub lic, Roadway 's wor kers ' compens ati on i nsurance car ri er , W eeksfil ed a cl aim for bene fits w it h the TW CCch all eng ing Ol d R epubl ic 's deni al and al leg ing he h ad s uffered a work- re lat ed back i nju ry and, as a resul t of the inj ur y , was dis abl ed and unabl e to wor k. A c ontes ted cas e hear ing was hel d o n M a rch 16, 2005. In a dec is ion date d M arch 24, 2 005, the hear ing off ic er

dete rmi ned t hat W eeks did n o t sus tai n a c ompensab le inj ur y , di d not s u s t a in a co m p e n s a b le re p e t it ive t ra u m a in ju ry, a n d d id n o th a ve a re s u lt in g d is a b il it y. On Ap ril 20, 200 5, W eeks f iled a request for rev iew w ith the TW CC appe als pan el. The 1T he ca se i s befor e t hi s C our t on t r ansf erf r om t he Ni nt h Cour t of Appeal s i n Beaum on t p urs ua nt t o an 2 o rd e r i s s u e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt o f T e x a s . See T EX . G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 7 3.00 1 (V ern on 20 05 ). T he d i st r i ct cour t di d no t gi v e r easons f ori t s d en i al o fO l d Republ i c' s pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on a nd m ot i on 3 f orsum m ar yj udgm ent
. Accor di ngl y , w e m ayaff i r m orr ev er se on anybasi s pr eser v ed i n t he r ecor d. C om bined Specialt

y I ns. C o. v. D eese , 26 6 S
. W
. 3d 65 3, 65 7-5 8 (T ex . A pp . –D al l as 20 08 , no pe t
. ). A tri a l o n a p e ti ti o n fo r ju d i c i a l re v i e w i s l i m i te d to th e i s s u e s d e c i d e d b yth e T W C C a p p e a l s p a n e l
. T EX . 4 L AB . C OD E A NN . § 41 0. 302( b) ( Ver non 2006)
. Her e, t he a ppeal s pan el di spose d of W ee k s ' s r equestf or r ev i ew on t he j ur i sdi ct i on al ti m el i ness i ssue wi t houtadd r essi ng t he m er i t s of t he r equestand , t her ef or e, di d no tr ul e on W eeks' s al l eged i nj ur i es an d di sabi l i t y . T he j udi ci al r ev i ew pr ocess t hat f ol l ows t he dec i s i on o f a n appeal s pan el di ff er s gr eat l yf r om a r egul arapp el l at e si t uat i on, i n whi ch a pl ai nt i ffor de fen d a n t a p p e a l s a t ri al co urt ' s rul i ng t o t he co urt of ap pe al s . I n a regu l ar ap pe al , i f t he ap pe l l ate c ou rt r ev er ses t he t r i al cour t ' s j ur i sdi ct i onal r ul i ng, i t r em ands t he ca se t o t he t r i al cour t f ordet er m i nat i on o n t he m e rit s . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43. 2. H owev er , i n t hi s adm i ni st r at i v e con t ext , n o s uc h m ec hani sm exi st s f or th e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o r e m a n d W e e k s 's c a s e to th e T W C C a p p e a ls p a n e l. S e e Te x . W o r k e r s ' C o m p . C o m m 'n v . H a rr is C o u n ty , 132 S. W
. 3d 1 39, 146 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h D i s t
. ] 2 004, no pet
. ) ( hol di ng t hat , ev en th o u g h th e T W C C a p p e a l s p a n e l d i d n o t a d d re s s th e m e rits o f th e re q u e s t fo r re v i e w , i t w a s i n a p p ro p ria te f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o r e m a n d th e c a s e to t h e p a n e l f o rr e v ie w o n th e m e r its b e c a u s e "n o m e c h a n is m in t he L aborC ode al l ows f orsuch a r em and" )
. I n t hi s case, wi t hou t th e op t i on forr em and and aft er d e te r m in in g i t h a d j u r is d ic tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r lyc o n d u c te d a d e n o v o re v ie w o fw h e th e rW e e k s 's 3 a p p e a ls p a n e l d e n ie d W e e k s ' s re qu e s to n t h e gro u n d s t h a th is a p p e a l wa s n o tt im e ly, th e re fo re ren d e rin g th e he a rin g of f ice r's de cis io n f in a l a n d bi n d in g. W eeks so ug ht j udi ci al re v iew of the a ppeal s p anel 's dec is ion by fil ing a pe ti ti on wit h t h e 2 5 3 rd Di s t ri ctCo u rti n L ib e rt y Co u n ty. T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 410.251 ( Ver non 2 200 6). W eeks urged the co urt to reverse the ap pea ls pane l's decision on the tim eliness of his req uestfo r re vie w and to rend er judgme nt th at he had suf fered comp ensa ble inj ur iesand w as dis abl ed. Ol d R epu b licfil ed a ple a to the j ur is dicti on and moti on for summar y j udg men t, a llegi ng thatthe dis tr ict c our t l ack ed s ubj ect -matter j ur is dicti on becau se W eeks 's admini strati v e appeal w as unti mely and, therefore, the deci si on of the hear ing off ic er

was final
. The cour

t den ied both t h e p le a a nd th e moti on on Dec ember 5, 20 06. 3 On Feb ruary 7, 20 07, the district cou rt condu cted a b e n c h trial on W eeks's subst ant iv e claims. The court he ard evidence f rom b oth parties, incl u ding ex pert 4i nj ur i es an d di sabi l i t ywer e com pensab l e. See T ex. Pr op. & C as. G ua r . Ass' n v . N at ' l Am
. I ns. C o. , 208

S. W
. 3d 5 23, 530 ( T ex. App. –Aust i n 20 06, pet
. den i ed) ( pet i t i on s fo rj udi ci al r ev i ew ofi ssues r egar di ng c om pe ns ab i l i t yare g ove rne d b ya d e n ovo revi ew stan da rd). Upon r equestbyO l d Republ i c, t he di s t ri ct cour t al so i ssued f i ndi ngs o ff act and concl usi ons o fl aw on 5 M a y1 , 2 0 0 7
. T EX . R. C IV . P . 2 9 6 ; see T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 4 1 0
. 3 0 5 ( Ve r n o n 2 0 0 6 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t he T e x a s R u le s o fC i v i l P r o c e d u r e a p p ly to p r o c e e d in g s f o rju d ic ia l r e v ie w u n le s s th e r u le c o n f lic ts w ith a r u le i n t he l ab or c od e). T he f i ndi ngs o ff act i ncl ude m i xed q uest i ons o fl aw and f act , gen er al l yst at i ng t hat W e e k s p ro v e d b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e th a t h e s u ff e re d c o m p e n s a b l e i n ju rie s a n d d i s a b i l i ty wi t hi n t he sco pe o fhi s em pl oy m ent wi t h Roadway
. T he co ncl usi ons o f l aw fo und t hat t he co ur t had j ur i sdi ct i on, W eeks h ad sust ai ned i nj ur i es and di sabi l i t y , and O l d Republ i c was l i abl e t o W eeks f orm edi cal expense s and t em por ar yi ncom e be nef i t s. 4 tes ti mo ny on th e na tu re an d s ev er i ty of W ee k s ' s i nj ur i es . On M arc h 29 , 20 07 , the court is sued it s fin al jud g ment, re nde rin g j udg ment for W eeks and order ing thatW eeks had sus tai ned a compens abl e i nju ry , a re peti ti v e trauma i nju ry, a n d su ffered a dis abi li ty beca use o f

those injuries. Th e cou rt aw arde d W eeks a ccrued interest a n d c o u rt costs. 5 Ol d R epubl icappeal s from the dis tr ict c our t' s fin al jud g ment. II. AN ALY SIS A. Subj ect -M atter

Ju ri sdi cti on By i ts firs t and seco n d i ss ues, Ol d R epubl icch all eng es the s ubj ect -matter jur is dicti on of the dis tr ict c our t t o hear W eeks 's cl aims
. 1. Standa rd of Rev iew W hether a c our t has subj ect -matter

jur is dicti on is a q uest ion of law and subj ectto d e n o vo re v iew
. Tex

as Dep 't of Par ks & Wildli fe v . M ir anda , 1 3 3 S
. W
. 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 (T e x. 200 4). T he p laintif

f mustallege fa cts af

f irmatively

dem onst rating the district cou rt's jur is dicti on to hear

the cas e. Fr

ank v. Lib er

ty Ins . C or

p., 2 5 5 S
. W
. 3 d 3 1 4 , 3 1 9 ( T e x. App.–A ust in 2008, pet. deni ed) . T o d e termine w hether the pla int iff has es tabl is hed jur is dicti on, t he c our

t w il l cons ide r both the fact s a ll eg ed by the pla in ti f

f and the5

ev ide nce submi tted by

the par ti es re levant t o the j u ris d ict io n al is sue. Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Rivera , 124 S.W .3d 7 05, 7 11 ( Tex . Ap p–Aus ti n 2003, pet. deni ed)
. Abse n t a show ing by the defendant t hat t he pl ain ti ff frau dul entl y

al leg ed facts to confer j ur is dicti on or

the face of the p eti ti on pl ain ly demons trates a l ack

of jur isdi cti on, t he c our t mus t c onst ru e the p lai nti ff's al leg ati ons in fav or of jur is dicti on. Id
. 2. Di sc uss ion In its f irst issue, Old Repu blic charges thatW eeks d id note xh a ust his adm inistrative rem edie s beca use o f his fa il u re t o time ly

app eal th e he aring of f icer's deci si on to the TW CCappeal s p anel
. Acc o rd ing to Ol d R epubl ic , W eeks 's fail ure to meet t he ex haust ion pre- re q uis it e depr iv es the d is tr ict c our t of j ur is dicti on. A party's fa ilu re to exhaustadm inistrative rem edie s und er Te x as's workers' compens ati on l aws d epr iv es the d is tr ict c our t of j ur is dicti on ov er

the par ty's req uestfor jud ic ial rev iew
. T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 4 10. 251 (Vernon 200 6); Com bine d Spe cialty Ins. Co
. v. Deese , 2 6 6 S
. W
. 3 d 6 5 3 , 6 5 8 ( Te x . A p p . – D a l l a s 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t
. )
. T h e e x haust ion pre- re q uis it e to jud ic ial re v iew is sat is fied onl y after a par ty 's cl aims hav e been re v iewed in a cont este d ad min istrativ e he aring, fo llow ed b y a time ly app ea l t o a TW CC appe als panel
. Deese , 266 S.W .3d at 658 . Th e time li n ess of a party's app eal to the ap pea ls panel i s i ncl uded i n the ex haust ion req uirement. Id .; see Fr ank, 255 S.W .3d a t 320
. To be ti mely , t he appe al from the hear ing off ic er's dec is ion mustbe fil ed by the fifteenth day

afte r the d ate t he c hal len g ing par ty recei v es the d eci si on, e x cl usi v e of w eeken ds and hol ida ys. T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 41 0.2 02(a ) ( Ve rn o n 2 006 ). TW CC6

ru lesprov ide thatt h e c h all eng ing par ty i s d eemed to hav e recei v ed th e dec is ion of the h e a r i n g o ffi c e r fi v e d a ys a ft e r t h e d e c i s i o n w a s ma i l e d
. 28 T EX . A D M IN . C OD E § 102. 5( d) (2 009)
. The hear ing of ficer's decis ion i n W eeks 's ca se w as dated Ma rc h 24, 2005. If w e were to presume that the d eci si on was act ual ly mai led on M arch 24, a s was argued by Old Repub lic and c o n clude d by the TW CC appe als pan el, W eeks would have bee n de em ed to receiv e the d e c is io n f iv e da ys later on March 29 , 200 5. T o ma ke a time ly ap p e a l u n d e r this scen ario, W eeks would the n ha v e be en required to f ile his request for rev iew

byApril 19 , 2 0 05, f if

tee n da ys af

ter his dee me d receiptdate . It is undi sput ed by

the par ti es that W eeks fil ed hi s a ppeal on A pr il 20, 2005. Howev er , W eeks present ed ev ide nce to t he di str ict c our t t hat t he dec is io n was ma iled on March 25. W eeks a ttach ed th e followi ng ex hibits to his respon se to Old Rep ubl ic 's pl ea to the juris dicti on and moti on for summar y j udg ment: ( 1) an e nv elo pe he re c e i v e d fro m t h e TW C C w i t h a p o s t a l d a t e s t a mp o f M a rc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 5; an d ( 2) W eeks 's aff ida v it aff ir ming that he re cei v ed the h ear ing off ic er's dec is ion i n the env elo pe w it h the M arch 25 date stamp. Beca use Ol d Republ icdoes not alleg e that W eeks made f raud ulen t allegation s in his petition to co n fe r ju ri s diction and we do not f ind a m anifest la ck of jurisdiction on the face o f W eeks's pe tition, we mu st const rue W eeks's all eg ati ons in hisfav or . Rivera , 124 S.W
. 3 d a t 711 . As such, w e credit W eeks's ev ide nce and c oncl ude t hat t h e h e a ring off ic er's dec is ion was mail ed on Ma rc h 25, 2005. Acc ordin g ly , under TW CC ru les , W eeks 's deemed re cei pt da te s houl d hav e been f iv e da ys lat e r on March 30. W eeks's requestfor rev iew to the app eals pa nel w as,7

therefore, ti melyb e cause i t was filed by Apr il 20, 2005, w it hin fifteen days a fter t he re v is ed deemed re cei pt da te of M arch 30. Beca use W eeks's requestfor rev iew was time ly

f iled, he p rope rly

ex hau sted his adm inistrative rem edie s before he sought judicial review , and the district cou rt correctly conc lud ed th at i t had su bje ct- matter j ur is dicti on ov er

W eeks 's cl aims
. See Deese , 266 S.W .3d a t 268
. Therefore, we ov er ru le Ol d R epubl ic 's first is sue. In i ts sec ond i ss ue, O ld Rep ubl ic tak es a sec ond sw ing at t he ti meli ness i ss ue by charact er iz ing i t as an is sue of suff ic ien t t ri al ev ide nce ra ther than an i ss ue of sub

jectmatter j ur is dictio n . Ol d R epubl icco ntends thatthe dis tr ict c our t er re d i n ent er ing judgme nt for W eeks b ecau se W eeks failed to presen t evi den ce at trial tha t he tim ely filed hi s a p p e a l and ex haust ed hi s a dmini strati v e remedie s. D espi te t he fact that the dis tr ict c our

t di spos ed of the jur is dicti on ( i. e. timeline ss) issue b y d enying Old Repu blic's plea to the jurisdiction an d mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t, Old Repu blic non eth eless claims tha t W eeks retain ed the b urde n of p roof a nd w as required to prove the tim eliness of his appe al at the ben ch trial as we ll
. Assumin g, w ithou t decid ing, that W eeks d id re tai n the burden of proof at tr ial , we are notpersuade d by Ol d R e publ ic 's arg ument becau se ithas not chal len g ed on appeal the ev ide nce appeari ng i n the record tha t W eeks's requestfor rev iew was time ly

f iled w ith the TW CC appe als pan el. W e overrule Ol d R epubl ic 's se cond is sue.B e c a u s e th e a d m is s ib ili t y o ft h e w itn e s s te s tim o n y w il l b e a rd ire c tlyo n th e s u ff ic ie n c y o fW e e k s 's 6 evi dence, we wi l l add r ess O l d Republ i c' s f i ft h an d si xt h i ssues r el at ed t o exp er t and l aywi t ness t est i m ony bef or e i t s t hi r d an d f our t h i ssues r el at ed t o t he su ff i ci encyof W eeks' s ev i dence.

8 B. Adm ission of

Te stimo ny by the Distri ct Court 6 By it s fifth is sue, Ol d Rep ubl ic arg ues that the dis tr ict cour t er re d in ad m it ti ng expert testim ony from W illiam J. Lan geland, D.C. By it s s ixt h i ssue, Old Repub lic challen ges the district court's ad mission of testim ony from W eeks a nd Millner. 1. Standa rd of Rev iew The admis si on and ex cl usi on of ev ide nce is a matter w it hin "the so u n d di sc re ti on of th e t ria l cour

t." Sta te Off

ice of Risk Mgm t. v. Trujillo , 2 6 7 S
. W
. 3 d 3 4 9 , 3 5 1 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, no p et.)
. W e rev iew the tr ial co urt' s d eci si on to admi t or e x c l u d e t e s t i mo n y fo r a b u s e o f d i s c re t ion
. Id . Th e trial court ab uses its discretio n if it act ed "w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s o r pr inc ipl es. " Id . ( ci ti ng E.I. du Pont de Nem our s &C o. v

. R obi nson , 923 S.W .2d 5 49, 5 56 ( Tex . 199 5) ). 2. Ex per t Test imony

of Chi ro pract or

Lang ela nd In it s fifth i ss ue, O ld Rep ubl icco mpla in s that the d is tr ict c our t er re d i n admi tti ng the testim ony of

Dr. Lan geland, asserting thathe w as un qualif ied t o giv e expert tes ti mony

on c ausat io n or repeti ti v e trauma i nju ri es. O ld Rep ubl ical so compl ain s t hat Dr . Lan g ela nd'stes ti mony was spec ula ti v e and unreli abl e. Unde r Texas Rule o f E vid ence 702 , an expert m ust be q ualif ied an d his tes ti mony

mustbe rele v ant a nd bas ed on a reli abl e foundati on. T EX . R. E V ID . 702 ; Br andt v. Sur

ber , 194 S.W .3d 108 , 130 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 2 0 0 6 , pet. den ied).9

To prov e tha t t he ex per t i s q ual ified , "t he offerin g par ty must s h o w th a t th e ex per t has know led g e, s ki ll , ex per ien ce, t ra ini ng , or educ ati on" rela ted t o the par ti cul ar i ss ue on w hic h the ex per

t w il l tes ti fy. Abilen e Indep. Schoo l Di st. v. Marks , 261 S.W .3d 2 62, 268 -69 (Te x . App .–E astlan d 20 08, no pe t.). To dete rm in e w het her expert testim ony is reliable, the trial court m ust assess "'th e me tho ds, analysi s, and principles relied up on in reach ing the opin ion . . . t o e n sure tha t the opinio n com ports wi th ap plicable professi onal st andards outs ide the cour troom.' " B r

andt , 1 9 4 S.W .3d a t 130 ( q uoti ng Gam m il l v. Jack Wil

li am s Chevr

ole t , 9 72 S. W .2d 7 13, 7 25- 26 ( Tex .1998) ). The t ri al court's role i s n ot t o det er mine w hether the ex per

t' s o pin ion i s a ctu all y

co rrect
. Id
. Inste ad, the trial court m ust ev alua te w het her "the analysis used to reach [the opin ion] is re li abl e." Id . at130- 31 ( ci tati on omi tted)
. In t he medi cal co ntext, ex per t t est imony

mustbe b ase d on "reason abl e medi cal probab il ity ," notmere "pos si bil ity , s pecul ati on, o r sur mis e." State Of fice of Risk M

gm t. v. Lar ki ns , 258 S.W .3d 6 86, 6 92 ( Te x. Ap p .– W aco 2008, no pet .)
. In ou r ev alu ati on of the und erly ing data use d by the expert, w e w ill consid er the followi ng non-exclusiv e list of fa ct o rs to as cer

tai n reli abi li ty : (1 ) the e xtent to w hic h the ex per t' s t heor y has been or c a n b e teste d; (2) the e xten t to w hich th e tech nique relies upo n the subject ive int er pretati on of the ex per t; (3 ) w hether

the th e or

y has been subj ect ed to peer rev iew and/or publ ic ati on; ( 4) the tec hni q ue'spote nti al ra te of er ro r; (5) w hether the under ly ing the oryor techn ique h a s bee n generally accep ted as v alid by the relevant scientif ic communi ty ; and ( 6) the non- jud ic ial us es w hich h a ve b een made of the th eor y or tec hni q ue. Me rr

ell D ow Phar

m s., Inc . v

. Havner , 953 S.W .2d 7 06, 7 14 ( Tex . 199 7)
.Eve n i f O l d R ep ub l i c ha d p res erve d t he qu al i fi c ati on i s s ue , ou r r evi ew of t he re c o rd r e vea l s t ha t D r. 7 Lange l and i s qua l i f i ed a nd h as the ne cessar yknowl edge, edu cat i on, ski l l s, and expe r i ence t o t est i fyas an exper t r egar di ng ca usat i on a nd r epet i t i v e t r aum a i nj ur i es. Dr. Lan gel an d i s a boa r d- cer t i f i ed ch i r opr act or wi t h ov ert went yy ear s of expe r i ence t r eat i ng p at i ent s w i t h spi nal i nj ur i es. He est i m at ed h e ha s t r eat ed one- hundr ed t o on e- hundr ed f i ft ypat i ent s a we ek fo r t he l astt went y - t wo y ear s. Dr. Lan gel and has a l so been cer t i f i ed b yt he T exas Depart m en t o f I nsur ance as a desi gnat ed d oct orf ort he Depar t m ent of W ork ers ' C om pe ns ati on . I n t ha t ca pa c i t y , he ha s be en t rai ne d a s a t rea t i ng do c to r fo r th e D ep art m en t of I nsur ance and i s r out i nel yasked to m ake det er m i nat i ons o n be hal fof t he T W C C t o set t l e di sput es be t we en i nsur an ce c ar r i er s an d i nj ur ed wo r ker s r eg ar di ng t he e xt en t a nd n at ur e of wo r kpl ac e i nj ur i es . As a de si gnat ed d oct or , D r . Lan gel and has e xt ensi v e exp er i ence r ev i ewi ng M R I f i l m s and r ender i ng o pi ni ons o n w h e th e r th e fi l m s s h o w e v i d e n c e o f i n ju ry o r tra u m a .
10 W e f irs ta d d re s s O ld Re p u b li c ' s ch a rg e t h a tDr
. L a n ge la n d is u n qu a li f ie d t o gi ve t e s t im o n y in t h is ca s e . T o p re s e rve e rro r fo r a p p e a l , a p a rt y m u s tm a k e a t im e ly, spec ificobjec ti on to the tr ial co urt t hat n ames t he g ro unds for th e obj ect ion w it h suffici ent spec ific ity . T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1; Adam s v . St ate F ar mMut. Auto. Ins . C o. , 264 S.W .3d 4 24, 4 29 (Tex
. App.–D all as 2008, pet. deni ed) ( op. o n reh'r ) ("A n obj ect ion to an expert's q ualif ication s mustbe raised in the trial court in orde r to p re s e rve error."). Al thoug h Ol d R epubl icmov ed to st ri ke Dr . Lan g ela nd'stes ti mony at the co n clu si on of W e e k s ' s c a se, it only objecte d on the ba sis of reliability , noton the basis of Dr. Lang ela nd'sq ual ific ati ons. Becaus e there w as no timel y object ion to the q ual ific ati on of W e e k s ' s e x p e rt , O l d R e p u b l i cd i d n o tp re s e r v e t h i s c o mp l a i nt. City of San Anto nio v. 7 Pollock , 52 T ex. Sup. Ct. J. 66 5, 20 09 W L 11 653 17, at *5 (Te x . May 1, 200 9). Old Repu blic also challen ges the re li a b il it y of Dr. Lan geland's te stimo ny. Old R ep ub l i c c om pl ai ns g en eral l y th at th e facts i n ev i de nc e at tr i al do no t supp ort Dr. Lan geland's conclusion s. Spe cif ically , Old Repu blic argues in its brief t h a tDr. Lang ela nd g av e tes ti mony , i ncons is tent w it h his w ri tten re cords, thatW eeks 's i nju ri es w ere c aused by

repeti ti v e trauma, no t an acut e i nju ry on a sp eci fic d ate. W e di sag re e.11

At t ria l, D r. Lang ela nd des cr ibe d the thoroug h physi cal exam he c onducted o n W eeks , i ncl udi ng or

thopedi c, neurolo g ic al, and ra ng e of moti on te stin g. T h e exam proces s o utl ine d by

D r. Lang ela n d ex hib it ed a del ibe ra ti v e method olo g y that inc or porated sta ndard c hiropract ictec hni q ues. See B ra ndt , 194 S.W .3d at 13 0
. Dr. Lang ela nd te sti fied th at t he s ymp toms manifest ed by W eeks i n respon se to t he te sti ng we re co n s is t e n twit h t h e co m p la in t s o f b a c k p a in W e e k s m a d e in h is m e d ic a l h is t o ry. I n a d d it io n t o h is o wn p h ys ic a l e xa m , Dr
. L a n ge la n d a ls o re li e d o n t h e o bje ct ive data in W eeks 's othe r medic al re por ts. The first p h ys ic ian w ho examined W eeks after hisi nju ry ordered a n M RI and ele ctromy og ra phy ( EM G)to hel p di ag nose the c ause of W eeks 's back pain. At tr ial , Dr . Lang ela nd used the radi olo g is t' s a nd neurolo g is t' s n otes in the MR I and EM G repor ts to s uppor

t hi s o pin ion
. See La rk ins , 258 S.W .3d a t 692
. In histes ti mony , D r. Lang ela nd demons trated a tho ro ug h g ra sp of the medic al is sues encompas sed in the p hysi ci ans' note s. H e c oncl uded t hat the repor ts from the MRI and EM G prov ed th at W eeks h a d s u f fe re d s train s a nd s prain s o f the musc lesi n hi s l ow er b a c ka n d a s p e c if ic d is c in ju ry ca ll e d ra d ic u lo p a t h y t h a two u ld ca u s e p a in t o t ra ve l d o wn W eeks's right le g. Dr
. L angelan d classif ied th is injury as an acu te trau ma to W eeks's b a c k t h a t w a s l i k e l y c a u s e d b y t h e tw i s t i n g mo t i o n o f j u mp i n g u p fro m t h e b u n k i n a sleep e r b erth, as was de scribed by W eeks in his m edica l history . Based on the se re po rts , D r . La ng el an d al s o c on c l ud ed th at , i n g en eral , W ee k s w as s uffer i ng from disc injuries too advanced for a ty pical ma n of his age. He de t e rm in e d t hatthe injuries were li k e ly c a u s e d b y t h e ve rt ic a l a xia l l o a d in g— a ve rt ic a l c e il in g- t o -f lo o r r e p e t it ive moti on—W eeks ex per ien ced in the c ourse of hisempl oy ment as a t ru ck dr iv er .12

W e c oncl ude t hat D r. L a n gel and' s t est imony es tabl is hed a re asona ble medi cal prob ab i l i ty

t ha t W ee k s ' s i nj ur i es were c au s ed b y rep et i ti v e traum a an d an a c ut e trau ma and t hat t he foundati on of hi s e x pert opi nio n i s s ound. See Marks , 261 S.W .3d a t 271 - 72 ( conc lud in g t h at do cto r' s e x per t t est imony

was based on a reason abl e medi cal probab ili ty

bec ause histes ti mony —bas ed on hisphysi cal exam of the wor ker , rev iew of the o bje cti v e dat a i n the wor ker's medi cal re cords, and know led g e of the wor ki ng cond itions surrou ndin g the injury —esta bl is h e d t he so urce an d severity of the worker's injury ). His physical exam of W eeks dem onst rates an app ropriate met hod ology , and his re l i a n c e o n t h e me d i c a l re p o rt s o f t h e o t h e r d o ct o rs s h o ws t h a t h i s o p i n i o n w as based on more tha n s ubj ect iv e s pecul ati on. Dr . Lange la n d offered reli abl e tes ti mony that W eeks su ffered bot h a s pecif ic a cu te t ra uma ca used by the jer ki ng moti on of j umping o u to f t h e s l e e p e r

b e rt h a n d a re p e t i t i v e t ra u ma t o h i s b a c kfro m y e a rs o f d r i v i n g a n 18- w heel e r o n ro u g h ro a d s . L a n g e l a n d ' s t e s t i mo n y d e mo n s t ra t e d t h a th i s c a u s a t i on opi nio ns and opi nio ns re g ardin g repeti ti v e trauma i nju ri es had a re li abl e foundati on. W e, t herefo re, c annot say thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n admi tti ng the tes ti mony

of Dr . Lan g ela nd. Ol d R epubl ic 's fifth i ss ue i s o v er ru led
. 3. Testi mony

of W eeks and Mi ll ner By it s s ixt h issue, Old Rep ublic objects to th e ad mission of W eeks a nd Millner's tes ti mony

reg ardin g (1) the effect s o n the human b ody of ri din g i n an 18-w heel er , ( 2) the differenc e i n the effecton t he human body of ri din g i n an 18-w heel er v ersus r idi ng i n a sta nd ard v eh i c l e, a nd ( 3)t he e ffect of v ar i ou s s afe ty d ev i c es i n R oa dway ' s t r uc k s . O ld Rep ubl icco ntends thatex per t t est imony

was re q uired to es tabl is h the se facts and t hat13

the d is tr ict c our

t er re d i n admi tti ng the tes ti mony of W eeks and Mi ll ner bec ause they w ere nev er

proper ly des ig nated and q ual ified as ex per ts. Ag ain , we di sag re e. Und er the Tex as Rul es of E v ide nce, a lay w it ness may offer his opi nio ns at tri al so lon g as thos e opi nio ns are " ra ti o n a ll y bas ed on the p ercept ion of the w it ness " and "h elpf ul to a clea r unde rstand ing of the wi tne ss' testi m o n y o r the de term inatio n of a fact in is sue. " T EX . R. E V ID . 701
. The w it ness's opi nio n i s b ased on hi s "p ercept ion " i f the witn e ss "p e rso n a lly ob se rved or e xpe rie n c e d " th e eve n ts ab o u t whi ch he is t e st if ying. Osb our n v . St ate , 92 S. W .3d 531 , 535 (Tex. Cr im. A p p . 2 002 ). The opinio ns, be liefs, and i nferenc es of the w it ness are admi ss ib le "as lon g as they are draw n from hi s . . . ow n ex per ien ces or

obs er v ati ons. " Id
. At t ri al, W eeks tes ti fied th at hi s father was a tr uck er , he had bee n around 18 - w heel ers h is w hol e l ife, an d at the t ime of h is a cc id e n t, h e had been dr iv ing an 1 8- w heel er p ro fe ss io n all y for n ear ly

si x y ears. H e al so tes ti fied th at he had been dr iv ing pas s e n g e r v e h i c l e s s i n c e h e w a s s i xt e e n - y e a rs - o l d
. M i l l n e r t e s t i fi e d t h at he had deca des o f

ex perien ce driv ing 18-w hee lers and sta nda rd passe nger v ehicles. W eeks and M il lne r offered s imi lar tes ti mony

reg ardin g thei r dr iv ing ex per iences. Theyboth tes ti fied th at t he route they traveled to an d from H oust on on thei r nor mal ru n to Vald osta , Geo rg ia w as cont inua lly u nde r con struction and thatthe roa ds w ere incred ibly ro ug h. W eeks and Mi ll ner des cr ibe d i n det ail thei r personal ex per ie n ce s of dri v ing both an 18-whe e le r a nd a sta ndard pas seng er v ehi cl e on ro ug h roads. They then co mpare d the r idi ng co ndi ti ons of the v ehi cl es and sta ted t hei r opi nio ns that, al thoug h a p ass eng er w il l feel s ome bumps i n a s tandard v ehi cl e on a bum p y road, thos e bumps are mi norFi ndi ng of Fact N um ber O ne st at es t hat W eeks " pr ov ed by a pr epond er ance of t he ev i dence t hat[ , ] on 8 S e p te m b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 4 [, ] h e d id s u s ta i n a c o m p e n s a b le lo w b a c k in j u r y w h ile in th e c o u r s e a n d s c o p e o fh is e m p lo ym e n t. " C o n c lu s io n o f L a w N u m b e r F iv e s ta te s th a t W e e k s " s u s ta in e d a c o m p e n s a b le in j u r y t o h is l o w b a c k o n S e p te m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 ." Forexam pl e, t he d i st r i ct cour t ' s f i r st f i ndi ng o ff act st at es t hat W eeks " pr ov ed by a pr epond er ance oft he 9 ev i dence t hat , on Sept em ber14, 200 4, he di d sust ai n a c o m p ensabl e l ow back i nj ur ywhi l e in the co ur se a n d s c o p e o f

em pl oym ent
. " ( Em phasi s add ed)
. T he co ur t ' s f i ndi ng i s a m i xed q uest i on o fl aw and f act 14 compared to the jar ri ng feeli ng W eeks and Mi ll ner e xperi enced w hil e r idi ng ov er the same roug h road i n an 18-w heel er . Both W eeks and Mi ll ner al so te st if ie d t h at t hey had on many oc cas ion s r idd en i n R oadway tr ucks w it h s afety equ ipmentand had personal ex per ien ce deal ing w it h the sa fetyeq uip ment. W e find that the t est imony offered by

W eeks and Mi ll ner

at tr ia l was b ased on the ir persona l ex perien ces as driv ers of both 18-w hee lers and sta nda rd v ehicles. The ir opi nio ns w ere bas ed on thei r obser v ati ons of road and r idi ng co ndi ti ons. Be caus e of thei r personal ex per ien ces , t hei r tes ti mony ce rt ain ly

helpe d t h e d is tr ict c our t t o better und e rs t a n d t he facts in issue. The refore, we conclude thatthe district cou rt prope rly admitted t he te sti mony of W eeks and Mi ll ner , a n d we ov er ru le Ol d R epubl ic 's si xth is sue. C. Suf f iciency of

Comp ensa ble "I njury" Ev iden ce By its third issue, Old Rep ublic con ten ds tha t W eeks fa il e d t o introd uce legally suffici ent ev ide nce to prov e he sus tai ned a compens abl e i nju ry on S eptember

14, 2004, as defined b y

the lab or

co de. See T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 40 1.0 11(1 0) (Vernon 200 6). For thatreason , Old Repu blic argues thatthe district cou rt erred i n en tering judgmen t in fav or of W eeks and is sui ng F ind ing of Fact N umber One and C oncl usi on of Law Number F iv e. The di str ict c our t' s fin din g s i ncl ude mi x ed q uest ion s o f law and fact. 8

9because t he co ur t bot h f i nds t hat W eeks su ff er ed an i nj ur y and concl udes t hat t he i nj ur ywas i n t he co ur se

and scope ofem pl oy m ent and t her ef or e com pensab l e un dert he l aborcode
. 15 1. Standa rd of Rev iew W hen the tr ial co urt' s fin din g s i nv olve q uest ion s o f law and fact, we rev iew

the cour t' s d eci si on for an abu se o f d isc reti on. Int'

l Fr eight F or wardi ng, Inc. v. Am . F

lan ge , 993 S.W .2d 262 , 267 (Te x . App .–S an Anton io 199 9, no pet .). W e defer to the c o u rt's factual dete rmina tion, i f suppor ted b y the ev ide nce, and re v iew the leg al conc lus ion s de nov o. Id
. "[T]he t ri al cour t abu ses it s dis creti on w hen it fails to proper ly appl y the law to the u ndi sput ed facts , w hen i t acts a rb it ra ri ly or unreason abl y , or

w hen i ts ru li ng i s b ased o n fa ct u a l a s s e rt i o n s u n s u p p o rt e d b y t h e re c o rd
. " Re ming ton A rm s Co., Inc . v . Lun a , 966 S.W .2d 641 , 643 (Tex. App– San Anto nio 19 98, pet. den ied). 2. Di sc uss ion The ter m " i nj u r

y " i s d e fi n e d a s " d a ma g e o r h a r m t o t h e p h ys i c a l s t r u ct u re of the body and a disea se or infect ion natu ra ll y resul ti ng from t he damag e or har m." T EX . L AB . C OD E § 4 0 1 .0 1 1 (2 6)
. A "c ompensab le inj ur y " i s d efined as"an i nju ry thatar is es out o f and i n the co urse and s cope of employ ment .
. . . " T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 40 1.0 11(1 0). An inj ur y re sul ti ng from an "act iv ity that or ig ina tes from the employ ment" and s uffered "while the em ployee is actua lly engaged in f urt h e ri n g the emp loyer's busin ess" is cons ide re d an inj ury su st a in ed i n the co urse and s cope of employ ment. Tex. W orkers' C o m p . In s . Fu n d

v . R odr igu ez , 953 S.W .2d 7 65, 7 68 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1997, w ri t de n ie d ). I f the i nju ry ens ues "from a r is k o r haz ard tha t i s reason abl y i nherent o r inc ide nt" t o the bus ine ss , t he i nju ry or ig ina tes from t he empl oy ment. ESIS , Inc.16

Ser vici ng Con tr actor v. Jo hnson , 908 S .W .2d 5 54, 5 57 (Te x . App .–Fo rt W orth 19 95, w rit den ied). Both W eeks and Mi ll ner tes ti fied that on the tr ip in w hic h W eeks w as inj ure d and on ot her tr ips , t hey

were s ubj ectto freque n t b u m ps, poth ole s, g ra de c hang es, and w ashbo ards. Bo th t est ified that the roug h road c ondi ti ons are more haz ardous for som eon e driv ing an 18-w hee ler than some one driv ing a stand a rd v ehicle. W eeks tes ti fied th at, on Sep tember 14, 200 4 , h e ex per ien ced sev ere l ow er bac k p ain and ra dia ti ng l eg pai n w hen he tw is ted u p a n d o u t of bed and j umped outof the s lee per b e rt h in re s p o n s e t o M i l l n e r ' s c a ll t h a titwa s W e e k s ' s t u rn t o d ri ve . In h is t e s t im o n y, Mi ll n e r confir med thathe o bser v ed th at W eeks was in sev ere pai n after he j umped out of the s lee per

ber th. As p re viou sly d isc u ss e d, W eeks present ed ex per t t est imony from D r. Lang ela nd conc er nin g the extent and nature of his i nju ri es. W eeks al so offered num erou s ex hibits to the cou rt, all of w hich w ere ad mitt ed wi tho ut obje c t io n byOld Repu blic, showing tha th e h a d be en d iagnosed w ith soft tissue lower back injuries, mult ipl e s ev ere di scbul g es, and an annu lar tear to one of hi s d isc s. Dr. Lang ela nd tes ti fied th at h is re v iew of W eeks 's medi cal records re v eal ed th at W eeks su ffered bot h g enera l , d e g e n e ra t i v e d i s cd a ma g e a n d a n a c u t e t ra u ma t i ci nj u r y . D r . L a n g e l and conc lud ed th at W eeks 's deg enerati v e i nju ry i s p arti cul ar ly

se v ere for a m a n h is a ge and can be ex pla ine d by

the fa ctt h a t W eeks was ex posed to v erti cal ax ial l oadi ng on a regular ba s is
. Dr . Lan geland f urthe r conclude d tha t the natu re of W eeks's acu te injury is c o n s is t e nt w ith W eeks's an d Millner's testimo ny tha t W eeks h ad jum ped up quickly f rom th e sleep er berth in a tw isting m otion , as W eeks h ad d one w hen he he ard Millner's17

cal l from the front of the c ab. W e c oncl ude t here i s a mple ev ide nce in the re co rd t o prov e tha t W eeks su ffered a com pen sable injury in the co u rs e o f

his emp loymentw ith Road w ay. W eeks's evidence p rov es tha t he suffe re d a physical i njury to his lower back a s a result of workre lat ed acti v it ies
. Hi s e v ide n ce es tabl is hes that re peti ti v e ex posure to ro ug h road condi ti ons we a ke n e d hi s b ack , ul ti matel y l eadi ng to the a cut e i nju ry he s ust ain ed on S e p t e mb e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , w h e n h e h u r r i e d l y tw i s t e d o u t o f b e d t o b e g i n h i s dr iv ing sh ift. W eeks e x perien ced th is inj u ry w hen he w as in the process of f urthe ring Road w ay's busin ess, an d his injuries are directly l inked to risks and ha z a rd s i n h e re nt to his em ploymen t as a line-ha ul driv er on rough road s. In light of

this overw helm ing ev iden ce, w e can notsay t h a tt he d istrict court abu sed its discret io n in f inding tha t W eeks su f fered an injury to his lower back. Furthe rmore , w e con clude thatthe district cou rt p ro p e rly applied th e law to the facts in con c l u d i n g t h a t W e e k s ' s S e p t e mb e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 i nj u r y w a s c o mp e n s a b l e u n d e r the l abor code. See T EX . L AB . C O D E A NN . § 40 1.0 11(1 0). Accordingly , w e overrule Old Rep ubl ic 's thi rd i ss ue. D. Suf f iciency of

Comp ensa ble "Re pet itiv e T raum a Inju ry " Evidence In i ts fourth is sue, Ol d R epubl icch arg es that there was nei ther factual ly

nor leg allysuff ic ien t ev ide nce to s uppor t t he di str ict c our

t' s fin din g thatW eeks su ffered a re peti ti v e trauma i nju ry i n the co urse and s cope of his empl oy ment. 1. Standa rd of Rev iew A tr ial cour

t' s findi ng s are re v iewed for suffici ency of t he ev ide nce; w e w ill treat18

the d is tr ict c our

t' s fin din g s i n the s a m e m a n n er as a j ur y 's v erdict. Lar

ki ns , 258 S.W .3d at 68 9. W hen challen ging the l e ga l s u f f iciency of

the evidence , the app ellantmust demonst ra te on appeal thatthere i s n o ev ide nce to s uppor t t he ad vers e f ili n g. Id .; Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloes el , 266 S.W .3d 4 56, 4 69- 70 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, pet . f iled). The c our

t w il l cons ide r all ev ide nce in the record i n a l ig ht m o stfa vorable t o the v erdict, "credi ti ng fav orabl e ev ide nce if a re asona ble factfinder woul d and dis re g ardin g co ntrar

y ev ide nce unl ess a reason abl e factfinde r woul d n ot." Lar ki ns , 258 S. W .3 d at68 9 (cit in g City of K ell er v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 27 (T e x. 2 0 0 5 )). The ev ide nce for a v it al fact i s l eg all y i nsuffici ent w hen: (a) there is a com plete abse nce o f ev iden ce of

a v ital fact; (b) the court is barred byrules of

law or of ev iden ce f ro m g ivi ng weight to the only ev ide n c e o ffe re d t o p ro v e a v i t a l fa ct ; ( c ) t h e e v i d e n c e o ffe re d t o p ro v e a v ital fa c t is no mo re than a me re scintilla; or (d) the evi den ce con clusiv ely est abl is hes the o pposi te of a v it al fact. Cit y o f Ke ller, 1 68 S. W .3d a t 810
. No more than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce ex is ts w hen t he ev ide nce is "so weak as to do no more tha n c re ate a m e re s u rm ise or su spi ci on" th at the factex is ts. For

d Motor C o. v . Ridg way , 1 3 5 S .W .3d 5 98, 6 01 ( Tex . 200 4) ( ci tati on om itted ). W hen t he appe ll ant c hal len g es the fact ual su ff ic ien cy of an ad vers e f inding on w hic h the othe r par

ty had the b urden of

p ro o f , th e appel lan t mus t demons trate t hat there i s i nsuffici ent e v ide nce to s uppor t th e adv erse findi ng . Tex. Prop . & Cas. Gua r. Ass 'n v. Nat 'l

Am . Ins. C o. , 208 S.W .3d 523 , 542 (Te x . App .–A ustin 2006 , pe t
. d e n ied). W e w ill consid er, w eigh, and ex am ine all of the evidence in the re c o rd , both in suppo rt of and co ntrar

y to the fin din g . Kloesel , 266 S.W .3d at 470 . W e w ill set asid e the district19

cour t' s fin din g onl y

i f it is so co ntrar

y to the o v er

w hel ming weig ht of the ev ide nce as to be c lea rl y

w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust
. Id
. 2. Di sc uss ion Ol d R epubl icco mplai ns that the dis tr ict c our t' s fin din g thatW eeks su sta ine d a repe titiv e traum a injury w as un supp orted by t h e e vid ence . "Repe titiv e traum a injury" is def ined as "da ma ge or harm to th e physical structu re of the bod y occurring as the result of repetitio us, ph ysically

traum atic ac t ivi t ie s thatoccur over time and arise out of and in the c ourse and s cope of e mploy ment." T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 401.011 (3 6)
. As is the cas e w it h a o ne- ti m e a cu te i nju ry , a re peti ti v e trauma i nju ry mustbe s uffered i n the course and s cope of employ ment t o be compens abl e under the lab or

co de. T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 410 .01 1(10 ). As dis cus sed at le n gth in the o ther par ts of thisopi nio n, W eeks produce d a pl e t h o ra o f e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l re g a rd i n g h i s i nj u r i e s . S p e c i fi c a l l y , b o t h W e e k s a nd M il lne r tes ti fied th at t hei r ro ute from H oust on to and from Val dost a , G eorg ia ex posed them to incredi bly

roug h road c ondi ti ons. Bo th W eeks and Mi ll ner al so tes ti fied th at t he e xpe rie n ce of

dri ving a n 18 -whe e le r ove r ro u gh ro a d s is e n t i re ly dif fe re n t t h a n dri ving a stan dard v ehicle ov er the sam e road s. T hey state d tha t the min or bum ps felt wh ile ri d i n g i n a re g u l a r

c a r o v e r a ro u g h ro a d d o n o tc o mp a re t o t h e e xt re me j a r r i n g a nd jerking ex perien ced in an 18-w hee ler. W eeks also prod uced t he e x pert te stimo ny of Dr. Lan geland, w ho c o n f irmed thatrepetitive ex posu re to the se rough con dition s would re sul t i n ex ces si v e v erti cal ax ial l oadi ng on t he dr iv er's sp ine
. Dr . Lan gel and t est ified that, bec ause of h is empl oy ment as a l ine -h aul dr iv er , W eeks 's co nti nued ex posure to20

thi s repeti ti v ely

traumati c c ondi ti on l ik ely ca used hissp ina l inju ri es, i n par ti cul ar the severe bulging discs rev eale d by W eeks's m edica l records. Consi der ing the ev ide nce in a l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to W eeks , we c oncl ude t hat W ee k s p rod uc ed legallysu ffic i en t ev i de nc e to p rov e he s uffered a rep et i ti v e trau ma in ju ry i n t h e co u rs e o f h is e m p lo ym e n twit h Ro a d wa y. He p ro vid e d t e s t im o n y, summar i z e d a b o v e , a n d e x h i b i t s s h o w i n g h e wa s e x p o s e d t o h a z a rd o u s ro u g h road condi ti ons w hil e dr iv ing for R oadway and that hi s repe ti ti v e ex posure to thos e c ondi ti ons caus ed a physi cal i nju ry to hisl ow er

bac k. The abund ance of ev ide nce consi dered by the d is tr ict c our

t was cer

tai nly more tha n a mere s ci nti ll a. W e also con clude thatW eeks p rodu ced factu ally suf f icient evidence t o estab lish he s uffered a compens abl e repeti ti v e trauma i nju ry . Con si d e ring , weig hin g , and ex amini ng al l of the ev ide nce in t h e record, bo th i n s uppor t of and cont ra ry

to the f inding, w e are of

the op inion th at th e d ist rict court's f inding w ith regard to W eek's re peti ti v e trauma i nju ry i s n eit her

cl ear ly w ro ng nor

mani festl y

unj ust
. W e ov er ru le Ol d R epubl ic 's fourt h i ss ue. E. Me dic al Ex pense s In its seventh a nd f inal issue, Old Repub lic challenges the district court's conclu sions of

law thatdete rmine it was liable for W eeks's m e d ic a l e xp ense s. Old Rep ubl iccl aims thatthe dis tr ict c our t er re d i n s o c oncl udi ng bec aus e m e dic al ex pense s w ere nev er

an i ss ue broug ht be fore t he TW CCappeal s p anel
. 1. Standa rd of Rev iew W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s c oncl usi ons of law

de n ov o. Vi

llag o mez

v. R ockwood21

Spe cialties, In c. , 210 S.W .3d 720 , 727 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 6, pe t. de nied ). W e wil l u p h o ld co nclusion s of law if th e judgme nt can be susta ined on an y legal theory suppo rt ed by

the e vide n ce. City of Houston v . C otton , 1 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2005, pet. deni ed)
. Thus, inc or re ct conc lus ion s o f l a w do not require rev ersal if

t h e controlling f indings of fact sup port th e judgme nt un der a correct leg al theor

y . Id
. 2. Di sc uss ion T he d istrict court dete rmine d in its conclusio ns of law thatOld Repu blic was liable to W eeks for medi cal ex pense s a ri si ng out of his i n ju ry and repeti ti v e trauma i nju ry . By thi s i ss ue, O ld Rep ubl ic appears t o arg ue th at t h e di str ict c our t had no j ur is dicti on to cons ide r that is sue becau se itwas not ex press ly rai sed in W eeks 's req uestfor rev iew to the TW CC appeal s panel
. It is tr ue that "[j ]udi ci al re v iew is re str icted to iss u e s rai sed b e fo re t h e a p p e a l s p a n e l
. " L op ez v. Zenith I

ns. C o. , 2 2 9 S
. W
. 3 d 7 7 5 , 7 7 9 (T e x. App.–E ast lan d 2 0 0 7 , no pet .) ; s ee T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 41 0.3 02(b ) ( Verno n 20 06). Here, we c annot say

thatW eeks fail ed to rais e the i ss ue of medi cal ex pense s. W eeks's allegatio ns mu st be libera lly construe d in his favor. Mo ra le s v. Liber ty Mu t. Ins . C o. , 241 S.W .3d 5 14, 5 17 ( Tex . 200 7 ). Fo llow ing the hear ing off ic er's deni al of his cl aims , W eeks rais ed, a mong othe rs , t he foll ow ing i ss ue: w hether h e s ust ain ed a com pen sable injury

on Se pte mb er 14, 2 004 . As p re vio usly describe d, a " com pen sable inj ur y " i s d efined as"an i nju ry t h a t a ris e s o ut of and in the c ourse and s cope of employ ment .
. . . " T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 40 1.0 11(1 0). Under the code , insuran ce carriers are liable for com pen sation to an e mp loyee w ho h as susta ined a com pen sable22

inj ur y . See T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . § 406. 031( a) (2 ) (V e rn o n 2 006)( sta ti ng thatan ins urance car ri er

i s re qui red to compens ate a n empl oy ee for an i nju ry ar is ing "out of and i n the co urse and s cope of employ ment")
. "Compen sat io n " i s d efined asthe pay ment of "benefit s," w hic h i n clu d e s medi cal ex pense s. T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . §§ 401.011 (5 ), (1 1)
. W e c oncl ude t hat t he q uest ion of Ol d R epubl ic's l iab il ity for medi cal ex pense s w as inc lud ed w it hin the compens abl e i nju ry i ss ue. Its l iab il ity

woul d have been a foregone conclusio n on ce it was de term ined thatW eeks's injury was com pen sable under th e c o d e. W hen W eeks broug ht, before t he appe alspanel , t he i ss ue of w hether he s uffered a compens abl e i nju ry on S eptember

14, 2004, he i mpli citly as ked the appeal s p a n el to c onsi der the medic al ex pense s t hat woul d nec ess ar il y foll ow from an fav orabl e dec is ion
. It is not an i ss ue th at s tands apar t. Beca use w e are re qui re d to li berall y co nst ru e W eeks 's al leg ati ons, we c oncl ude that he raise d the is sue of medic al ex pense s w it hin hi s c ompensab le inj ur y i ss ue. See Mo ra les , 241 S.W .3d a t 517
. As the d is tr ict c our t had su bje ct- matter

j ur is dicti on ov er W eeks 's compens abl e inj ur y is sue, w e find no meri t in Ol d Rep ubl ic 's ass erti o n th a t t he court lacke d jurisdiction to conside r med ica l expense s. Moreover, because the district cour t ' s fi n d i n g o f fa ctt h a tW e e k s s u ffe re d a c o mp e n s a b l e i nj u r y s u p p o rt s t h e l e g al conc lus ion thatOl d R epubl ici s l iab le for medi cal ex pense s, w e c a n n o t say thatthe d is t ri ctco u rte rre d in it s co n c lu s io n s o f la w. W e ov er ru le Ol d R epubl ic 's se v enth is sue. III
. CO NC LUS ION23

W e aff ir m the dis tr ict c our t' s j udg ment. NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 1 1th d ay

of June, 2009.