### NUM BER 13-07- 0044 9-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 X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
CH A RL ES L YON S, A pp ellan t,
v. ST A TE OF FIC E OF R ISK M A NA GEM ENT A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 13 6t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of Je ffe rson C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez App ellant , Charles Lyons, ap pea ls a take-no thing judgme nt ba sed o n a jury v erdict findi ng thathe d id not sus tai n a c ompensab le inj ur y . In t hr ee i ss ues, Ly ons cont ends that: (1 ) the e v ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t the jur y ’s ve rd ic t; (2 ) the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by

refusing to submi t Ly ons’ s p ro posed defini ti on of “ inj ur y ”; and (3 ) the
ev i de nc e i s fac tu al l y

i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt th e v erdi c t. W e affi r m.2 I. B A CKGRO UND Lyons f iled a claim w ith the Te x as Depa rtme n t o f I nsura nce, Div ision of

W orkers’ Compen sat ion ( D W C ) , fo r me r l y k n o w n a s t h e T e x as W or kers’ C ompensat ion C ommis si on. At a co ntes ted h ear ing , t he hear ing off icer det er mined that Ly ons did not sus tai n a compens abl e i nju ry

and did not hav e resul ti ng disabi li ty

. Upo n rev iew of the deter minat ion , the D W C appeal s p anel dete rmi ned t hat L y ons had s ust ain ed a compens abl e i nju ry and dis abi li ty

. The Stat e Of fice of Ri sk

M anag ement ( SOR M) broug ht a law sui t c hal len g ing the appeal s p anel ’s findi ng . See T EX . L A B OR C OD E A NN . § 410 .30 1(a) (Vernon 200 6). At trial, SORM called Lyons an d Dr. Donald Ba xter. Lyons did no t call any w itnesse s. A . Ly ons’s Tes timony L yo n s t e s tif ied th at on April 5, 200 4, he sustain ed a n injury to his lef t footw hile
w or ki ng as a Tex as Y outh Commi ss ion dor m supe rv is or . In an effort t o prepare the faci li ty for an upcomi ng inv est ig ati on, Ly ons w ent int o a suppl y clos et to check

the chemi cal l og book. After

ch eck ing the log , Ly ons w alk ed approx imat ely three s teps and pushe d open the doo r to ex it the closet. As he w alked out of the close t, the doo r, equipped w ith a de v ice that caus es itto cl ose automati cal ly , beg an to cl ose. As “ the d oor w as comi ng back

. . . [Ly ons] ki nd of g ra bbed t he door and piv ot[ed ] to go arou nd it.” Ly ons als o des cr ibe d the
ev ent a s fol low s: “ It w as comi ng bac k tow ard me; so, I had to ex tend myr ig ht ha nd and stop it before it cam e ba ck and slamm ed o n me and tha t’s w hen I kind of stepp ed. I l ike [si c] outw ard and around i t.” As he mov ed, L y ons heard a “ pop” i n hi s l eft foot. Immedia tel y

i n pai n, Ly ons thoug ht t hat h e must hav e been hiti n th e f o o t b y s omethi ng throw n by

a n i nmate. U pon l ater ex aminat ion , Ly ons lea rn ed th at no thi ng w as throw n. Ly ons did not fall, but lea ned ag ain st a near by bunk bed w hil e a maint enanc e w or ker w ho all eg edl y heard the pop ru shed to ai d hi m.3

T h e n u rs e a tt h e fa c il it y’s in f ir m a ry n o t ic e d swe ll in g i n L yo n s ’s fo o t ; la t e r th a td a y, Ly ons w ent t o the emerg ency room. Al thoug h Ly ons coul d notremember w hat h e tol d the
em ergency room docto rs, he re m e mb ered thatx -ray s w ere take n, an d a do ctor told h im tha t his lef

t footw as f ractured . T he doct or p ut a soft splint cast o n Lyons’s lef t footand told him to s tay

home fro m w or k for

a w eek. B. Ly ons’s Medic al Rec ords The follo w ing is a summar y of Ly ons’ s medic al re cords, and th e in f o rmation cont ain ed th er ein , admi tted int o ev ide nce. Prior to April 5, 2 0 0 4 , L yons was treated for diabe tes by Dr . W .O. Pickard . Dr

. Pi ck ard’s records detai l Ly ons’ s diabe tes treat ment f ro m Febr uar y 2, 1996 to Apri l 2, 20 04, and do no t me ntion neu ropa thic footproblem s. Ly ons’ s A pr il 5, 2004 emerg ency ro om re cord sta tes thatLy ons w as “w alk ing and f e lt a p o p.” Th e “chief comp laint” section of

the reco rd state s, “L footpain on set to da y. Den ies i nju ry .” Ly ons’ s e merg ency room record does not menti on neuropath ic foot probl ems. On A pr il 12, 2004, Ly ons v is it ed c h iropract or , D r. Ste v en J . En abni t. M edi cal
re cords obtai ned from Dr

. Enabni t menti on a fract ur e of Ly ons’ s fifth metatarsal , butdo n ot menti on neuropathy

. Addi ti onal ly , D r. F or ney F lemi ng , an orthopedi c s urg eon, treated Ly ons’ s fr a ct ur e from A pr il 20, 2004 t o Aug ust3, 2004. R ecords from Ly ons’ s A pr il 20, 200 4 v isit refe r to Ly ons’s in ju ry a s a “Jones f racture. ” On Jun e 2, 20 04, Dr. Flemin g’s
r e c o rd s s t a t e : “ M r . L y o n s w a s fi rs tev a l u a t e d b y m e o n 4 / 2 0 / 0 4

. H e g a v e a h i s t o r y o f a tw is ti ng i nju ry

to his foot ac compani ed by a pop and pai n.” Dr

. Fl eming ’s re cords do not
m e n t io n n e u ro p a t h y.T he Novem ber 200 4 i nj ur y i s not at i ssue i n t hi s case. 1 D r . Baxt er descr i bed t he d i ff er ence bet ween a “ Jones f r act ur e” and a st r ess f r act ur e as f ol l ows: 2 G e n e r a lly, a J o n e s f r a c tu r e o c c u r s w h e n a b a s k e tb a ll p la ye r c o m e s d o w n a n d tu r n s th e a n k le and r eal l y fr act ur es t he bone[ , ] w her eas t he st r ess f r act ur e occur s overt i m e an d usu al l y [ i s] associ at ed wi t h ot her pr obl em s such as ne ur opat hi c f eet , di abet es, and pr obl em s wher e y ou l ose t he se nsat i on i n t he f oot and hav e pr obl em s. N eur opat hy i s a “ [ p] r ogr essi v e degen er at i on ofwei ght bea r i ng j oi nt s, espe ci al l y of t he f oot and ankl e, 3 a s s oc i ated w i t h s en s ory l os s du e t o n erve da m ag e i n t ho s e a rea s . ” I DA G. D OX ET AL ., A T T OR NEY ’ S I L L US T RA T E D M ED I C AL D I C T I O N A R Y N : 99 (W es t S up p. J ul y 20 09 ). 4 In N ov embe r 2 0 0 4 , L yons s ust ain ed a sec ond i nju ry to his l eft foot. D r. C har les 1 Domi ng ues, an ort hopedi c surg eon, pro v ide d care to Ly ons after he s ust ain ed th e s econd inj ur y . On A p ril 21, 2005, D r. D oming ues w ro te: “ Mr . Ly ons is a g entl eman w ho I am seei ng and treati ng i n my off ic e for a neoropathi c midfoot probl em inv olv ing the left foot. T his is relate d to his dia bet es. T his is all referred ba ck to a spe cif ic w orker’s comp injury that occ ur re d i n the pas t.” C. Dr. Baxter’s Testimony Dr . Ba xter , a board c erti fied or thopedi c s urg eon, w as cal led as SOR M’ s medi cal
ex pe rt. D r . Ba xte r ’ s q ua l i fi c at i on s as an ex pe rt i n foo t an d an k l e prob l em s are unco ntroverted. Dr

. Baxter testif ied that he had rev iew ed Ly ons’s medica l records, as w ell
as the d eci si ons from the ini ti al DW C hear ing and the D W C appeal s p anel

. Dr . Baxter

testi fied that altho ug h Ly ons’ s medi cal records desc ri be th e Apr il 5, 2004 inj ur y as a “J ones fract ur e,” it is his opi nio n that the inj ur y w as re all y a stress fract ur e i n the fifth metatarsal

. D r. Baxter st ated, thatw hil e iti s c ommon for pe opl e w it h di abetes and 2
neu ropa thic feet to hav e stress f ractures, the y typically do not hav e Jon es f ractures. Dr

. 3 Baxter state d tha t stress f ractures “gradua lly progress an d develop an d the n the re is a
cer tai n poi nt w her e the bone w il l g iv e w ay .” D r. Baxter

bas ed hi s o pin ion tha t Ly ons’ s i nju ry w as a s tress frac ture on: ( 1)5

me dical records de scribing Ly ons’s moveme nt to av oid th e do or as “w alking”; ( 2) Lyons’s history of d iabe tes; a nd (3) the dif f iculty of t he f racture to hea l. Dr. Baxter testif ied th at it is “hig hly unlikely” tha t som eon e w ould su stain a stress f racture f rom a single incid ent . He testi fi ed th at , ac c ordi ng to th e me di c al r ec ords , Ly on s ha d a di ffic ul t ti me c on trol l ing his diab ete s, and thatit w as “v erylikely ” t h a t t he stress f racture was a result of Ly ons’s dia beti c c ondi ti on. Dr . Ba xter

tes ti fied th at i n readi ng al l the records, the d e sc rip tion of the ev ents sur ro undi ng the moment t h a t Ly ons heard a p op w er e des cr ibe d as “ w alk ing around a doo r” or “sim ply w alking.” Base d on the foregoing, Dr. Baxter opine d tha t Lyons’s stress fract ur e w as not rela ted to his emplo y ment, but rat her , w as rel ated to w alk ing

. Dr . Ba xter tes ti fied th at t he moti on i nv olv ed i n w alk ing around a door does not i n volve a motion
ou ts i de t he rea l m o f “

j us t w al k i ng .” Dr

. Ba xte r s ta te d th at , “ W he r e y ou g eti n[ to ] prob l em s w it h i nju ri es on- the-

job i s w hen t her e i s a n i nv ersi on i nju ry w her e the ank le act ual ly tur ns all the w ay over an d y ou f racture b one s, butsimply w alking and pivoting does no t cause thes e frac tures, par

ti cul ar ly a J ones fract ur e.” Dr. Baxter f urthe r testif ied th at an oth er indica t io n L yo ns’s f racture was a stress fract u r e ra t h e r

t h a n a J o n e s fra c t u r e w a s t h a tL y o n s ’ s fra c t u r e d i d n o th e a l e a s i l y and “[ p]eopl e w it h neuropathi c s tress fract ur es hav e a v er y di ff ic ultti me heal ing thes e, an d the y often r esul t i n anot her

i nju ry or frac tures ag ain .” On c ro ss ex aminat ion , D r. Baxter ackn o w led g ed th at t he medi cal ch arts of the doct ors w ho trea ted Lyons’s lef t footnote d tha t Lyons had suf fered a Jone s f racture. He t e s t if ie d t h a ta lt h o u gh a Jo n e s f ra c t u re a n d a s t re s s f ra c t u re c o u ld lo o kt h e sa m e in a n xray , he had n ot rev iew ed Lyons’s x-ray. He f urthe r ackn owl edged t hata m edica l history prov ide d by

D r. F lemi ng s ta te d t hat L y ons “g av e a h is tor y of a tw is ti ng i nju ry

to his foot6

acc ompani ed by

a po p and pai n.” Ad dit ion all y , D r. Baxter ack now led g ed th at he found no ind ic ati on th at Ly ons suffered from foot probl ems pr ior to Apr il 5, 2004. After w eig hin g al l the e v ide nce, the jur y found thatLy ons did not sus tai n a compens abl e i nju ry

and did not re a ch the i ss ue of di sabi li ty bec ause itw as condi ti oned upon find ing a c ompensab le inj ur y . Base d on this v erdic t, the t ri al cour t rendered a jud g ment t hat rev ersed the D W C’ s fin din g . This appeal ens ued. II. L EGA L S UF FI CI E NCY In his f irst issue, Lyons conte nds th at t h e re i s n o e v iden ce to sup port th e jury ’s
v erdict tha t he did not suf fer a comp ensa ble injury. Spe cif ically , Lyons argues thatSORM “b ased it s cas e on it s ex per t’ s t est imony , w hic h c onsi ste d of spec ula ti on and conj ect ur e, pil ing i nferenc e upon infer ence. ” A . St and ard o f Rev iew an d A pp licab le L aw As the par

ty appeal ing the appeal s panel ’s deci si on, SOR M had the burden at t ri al to prove, by a p re p o n d eran ce of the evidence , tha t Lyons did no t suf fer a com pen sable inj ur y . See T EX . L AB . C OD E A NN . §§ 410.301 (a ), 410. 303 ( Ver non 200 6) ; Mo ra les v. Li ber ty Mu t. Ins . C o. , 241 S. W .3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 6 ( Tex . 200 7)

. W hen an appel lan t at tac ks the leg al
s u ffi c i e n c y

o f a n ad v e rs e fi n d i n g on an i s s u e for w h i c h i td i d n o th a v e t h e b u rd e n o f p ro o f, th e ap p e lla n t m u stde m o n st ra te th a t t h e re is n o evid e n ce t o s u p p o rtt h e ad vers e f in d in g; the refore, Lyons mu st dem onst rate tha t the re is no e v iden ce to sup port th e jury ’s v erdict that he di d notsu ff er

a c ompensab le inj ur

y . See State Off

ic e of Ri sk M gm t. v. Lar

ki ns , 258 S.W .3d 686, 689 (Tex

. App.–W aco 2008, n o pe t. ); see a lso Ins. Network of Tex. v. Kloesel , 266 S.W .3d 456 , 469 -70 ( T ex. App .–Corp us Christi 200 8, pet. filed)

. W e will
cons ide r a ll e videnc e i n the record i n a l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to the v erdic t, “c re dit ing favorable evidence if a rea sona ble f a c t f in der w ould and disregarding contrary ev iden ce7

unle ss a rea sona ble factf inde r w ould not. ” Lar ki ns , 2 5 8 S. W .3 d at68 9 (cit in g City of K eller v. W ils on , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 27 ( Tex . 200 5) ). W e w il l sus tai n a c hal len g e to the l eg al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce onl y

i f: ( 1) there i s a compl ete absen ce of ev ide nce of a v it al fact; (2) the court i s b a rr e d b y r ules of law or of ev iden ce f rom giv ing w eight to the only
ev ide nce off er ed to prov e a v it al fact; ( 3) t h e e vi dence offer ed to prov e a v it al fact i s n o mo r e t h a n a me r e s c i n t i l l a ; o r ( 4 ) t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s c o n c l u s i v e l y t h e o p p o s i t e o f a
v it al fact. City of K

eller , 168 S.W .3d a t 81 0

. N o m or e tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce ex is ts
w hen t he ev ide nce is “ so w eak as to do no more than create a mere sur mis e or su spi ci on” that the factex is ts. For d Motor C o. v . Ridg way , 135 S.W .3d 5 98, 6 01 (Tex . 200 4) ( ci tati on omit ted)

. The ter m “ inj ur

y ” is defined as “d amag e or har m to the phy si cal str uct ur e of the body and a disease or infection natu rally resulting from the da ma ge or harm.” T EX . L AB . C ODE § 401.011( 26) (Ver non Supp. 2008)

. A “ compens abl e i nju ry ” is “ an i nju ry thatar is es out of and in the cou rse and scope of emp lo ym e n t

. . . .” Id. § 40 1.011( 10) ( Ver non Su pp. 2008)

. An i nju ry

resul ti ng from an “a cti v it y thator ig ina tes from t he empl oy ment” and suf fered “w hile the emp loyee is actually engaged in f urthe ring the em ployer’s business” is
c o n s i d e r e d a n i n j u r

y s u s t a i n e d i n t h e c o u rs e a n d s c o p e o f e mp l o y me n t

. T e x . W orkers’ Com p. Ins. Fund v

. R odr igu ez , 953 S.W .2d 765 , 768 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 7, w rit deni ed)

. Ex per t t est imony

i s n eces sar

y t o e stabli sh caus ati on as to medic al condi ti ons outs ide the common k now led g e and ex per ien ce of jurors. Guev ar a v . F er re r , 247 S.W .3d 662, 665 (Tex

. 2007)

. “[ Ex per t] opi nio n tes ti mony

thati s c oncl usor

y or sp ecul ati v e i s n ot relevant evidence, beca use it do es no t ten d to m ake th e existence of a ma terial fact ‘mo re or less proba ble.’” Coa sta l Tr ansp. Co. v. Cr

own C ent. Petr

o. C or p. , 136 S.W .3d 2 27, 2 32W e n o te th a t “ o p in io n s o fm e d ic a l e x p e r ts a r e a n e x c e p tio n to th e r u le a g a in s t in f e r e n c e s ta c k in g .” 4 W el ch v. McLean , 191 S. W

. 3d 1 47, 161 n. 7 ( T ex. App. –For t W or t h 2005, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng T e x . E m p l

. I n s . A s s ’n v. Talm adge , 2 5 6 S .W .2 d 9 4 5 , 9 5 1 -5 2 (T e x . C i v . A p p .– B e a u m o n t 1 9 5 3 , w rit re f’d n .r.e ); S. U nder w r i t er s v. H oo pes , 1 2 0 S .W .2 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 6 (T e x . C i v . A p p .– G a l v e s to n 1 9 3 8 , w rit d i s m ’ d ); W h i te v . P re s n a ll , N o. 05 -93 -01 02 9-C V , 19 94 W L 4 16 72 4, at *6 (T ex . A pp . –D al l as A ug . 10 , 19 94 , w ri t de ni ed ))

. 8 (Tex . 200 4) ; see a lso T EX . R. E V ID . 401

. “W hen t he ex per t ‘ br ing s t o c our

t l it tl e more tha n his credenti als and a s ubj ect iv e o p inion, ’ thi s i s n ot ev ide nce that w oul d s uppor t a j ud g ment. ” Me rr

ell D ow Phar

m s., Inc . v

. Havner , 953 S.W .2d 7 06, 7 12 ( Tex . 199 7) (citation omitt ed). W hen t he c hal len g e to ex per t t est imony

req uires the c our

t t o ev alu ate t he u n d e r l y ing methodol og y , t echni q ue, o r f o undati onal data us ed by the ex per

t i n formi ng hi s o r her opi nio n, a ti mely

obj ect ion mustbe made in the t ri al cour t w hen t he te sti mony

i s o ff er ed to pr eser v e the i ss ue for appel la te rev iew

. Coa sta l Tr ansp. C o. , 136 S.W .3d a t 233 ; Mar. Oversea s Co rp. v. Ellis , 971 S.W .2d 4 02, 4 09 ( Tex . 199 8) ; W elch v. Mc Lean , 191 S.W .3d 147 , 158 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 200 5, no pet .). How ever, no object ion is required w here there is no need to g o bey ond the face of t he re cord. Coa sta l Tr ansp. C o. , 136 S.W .3d a t 233; W elch , 191 S.W .3d a t 158

. B. A nal ysis Lyons cont end s thatS O RM “ base d its case on [Dr. Baxter]’s testim ony, w hich
cons is ted o f specu lat ion and conj ect ur e, pi li ng i nferenc e upon infer ence. ” As s uch, Ly ons f urthe r cont end s tha t “the v ital fact at issue i s w het her Ly ons sustai n e d a comp ensa ble i nj ur y o n April 5 , 20 04 , or

w he th er

t ha t i nj ur

y w as a s tres s fr ac tu r e r es ul ti ng from a neuropathi c o r Ch ar cotco ndi ti on th at ha d dev elo ped pr ior to Apr il 5, 2004.” Ly ons further cont end s that “[a] v ital fact—su ch as w het her Lyons suf fered a com pen sable injury on Ap ril 5 , 2 0 0 4 —c a nnot be es tabl is hed ‘ by pi li ng i nferenc e upon infer ence’ or by draw ing
unr eason a b le i n f e re nces from ot her facts and ci rc umstan ces .” N o ti mely obj ect ion 49

chal len g ing the re li abi li ty of Dr . Baxter ’s opini on ex is ts in the re cord; ther efore, w e rev iew onl y the face of the record to tes t D r. Baxter ’s reli abi li ty

. See W elch , 191 S.W .3d a t 158

. Byc at eg or i z i ng t he j ur

y ’ s fi nd i ng t ha t Ly on s d i d no t s us ta i n a c om pe nsable injury on Apr il 5, 2004 as a “ v it al fact,” Ly o n s attempt s t o es tabl is h the ex is tenc e of in ferenc es tha t the jury

w as proh ibited f rom m aking. T h e vi t a l f a cts required to sup port th e jury ’s findi ng are: (1 ) w hether Ly ons suffered an inj ur y ; and ( 2) w hether

such inj ur

y arose out of and i n the co urse and s cope of employ ment. See T EX . L AB . C ODE § 401 .01 1(10 ), (26). Nei ther par ty di sput es th a t L yons su ff er ed an inj ur y ; t her efore, w e focus our anal y si s o n w hether su ff ic ien t ev ide nce ex is ts to prov e the v it al fact th at Ly ons’ s i nju ry di d notar is e out of and i n the co urse and s cope of employ ment. In order to meet i ts burden of prov ing thatLy ons’ s fr act ur e di d notar is e outof and in the c ourse and s cope of empl oy ment, SOR M off er ed Dr

. Baxter ’s ex per t medi cal opi nio n that Ly ons’ s inj ur

y w as a neuropat hicst re ss frac ture c aused by pre- ex is ti ng di abetes , and not a ri si ng out of Ly ons’ s e mploy ment. The c ri ti cal dete rmi nati on th e j ur y had to mak e w as w het her Lyons’s f racture was a Jones f racture o r a n e u ro pat hic stress f racture. Dr

. Baxter ’s tes ti mony

es tabl is hed t hat t his di sti nct ion i s p erti nent bec a use, w hil e a J ones f racture ca n arise f rom a singl e occu rrence i n the course and scope of em ploymen t, it is “highly unlikely” thata n euro pat hic stress f racture w ill arise f rom a singl e occu rrence. Dr. Baxter tes ti fied th at a Jones frac ture is caus ed by “[ a] v iol ent tw is ti ng or tur nin g of the foot. ” Ly ons’ s e merg ency

room records sta ted that Ly ons w as “w alk ing and felt a pop.” Ba sed on th is des cr ipt ion , D r. Baxter co ncl uded t hat L y ons’ s mov ement atthe ti me of t he i nci dent did not “t ake itoutsi de the real m of actual ly j ustw alk ing .” D r. Baxter furth er tes ti fied th at ev en i f Ly ons “p iv oted, ” as he sta ted dur ing his tr ial tes ti mony , t hat a cti on w oul d amount to no mor e tha n wal kin g. Accordin g to Dr . Ba xter , “ [w]here y ou g et i n probl ems w it h10

inj ur ies on- the-

job i s w hen t her e i s a n i nv ersi on i nju ry w her e the ank le act ual ly tur ns all the
w ay over and yo u f ra c t u re b one s; butsimply w alking and pivoting does no t cause these f ractures, particularly a Jon es f racture. ” If the jury chose t o believe tha t Lyons w as me rely
w alking w hen he susta ined the injury, they could have inf erred tha t Lyons suf fered a stress fract ur e. Mo r eo v er , D r . Ba xte r

h as b ee n a bo ard c er ti fi ed o rth op ed i cs urg eo n, s pe c i fi c ally dea ling w ith the foot and ankle , for mo re tha n thirty y ears. His qualif ication s as an ex pert ar e un co n te st e d

. In addi ti on to bas ing hi s o pin ion on t he emerg ency room records of Ly ons’ s d esc ri pti on of hi s mov ement around t he c los et do or , D r. Bax ter al so re v iew ed add itiona l med ical records to asse ss Ly ons’s he alth b efore an d after A p ri l 5 , 200 4. Dr. Baxter testif ied that, since 199 6, Ly ons had ex perien ced dif f iculty cont rolling his diab ete s. Al thoug h medi cal records did not ind ic ate t hat L y ons had neu ro pathi c feet before A pr il 5, 200 4, Dr. Baxter testif ied th at if an individual ha s dif

f iculty cont rolling his diab ete s, it is “h ig hly l ik ely ” that he w il l hav e neuropathy i n hi s feet. D r. Baxter furth er tes ti fied th at neuropathy

ca uses a l oss of sens ati on ov er ti me i n the feet and that suc h a l oss of
sens ati on mak es itdi ff ic ultto dia g nose a s tress fracture. Dr . Baxter note d tha t “ peopl e w it h
neu ropa thic stress f ract u re s h a v e a very dif f icult time hea ling.” Medical records, as well
as Ly ons’ s t est imony , i ndi cat ed th at he had ex per ien ced probl ems he ali ng . Al thoug h reason abl e and fair-mi nded pe o p le could differ i n the ir co ncl usi ons of
w hether Ly ons suffered a compens abl e inj ur y , the e v ide nce pr esent ed fall s w it hin the z one of reas onab le d is ag re ement. See City of K eller , 168 S.W .3d a t 822

. W e c oncl ude t hat
reaso nab le and f a ir -m inde d pe ople could ha v e foun d tha t Lyons did no t suf fer a compens abl e i nju ry . Ly ons’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. IV. F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY11

In his third issue , Lyons conte nds th e jury ’s fin din g t h a t h e d id notsuf fer a compens abl e i nju ry

i s b ased on factua ll y

i nsuffici ent e v ide nce, or i s ag ain st the g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W hen the ap pellant

c ha l l enges th e factu al suf f iciency of

an ad v erse f inding on which the othe r partyhad the bu rden of proof , the app ell a n t m ust de mo nstrat e tha t the re is ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce to suppo rt the a dv erse findi ng . T e x . Pr op . & C a s . G u a r

. A s s ’n v . Na t ’l A m . In s . C o. , 2 08 S. W .3d 523 , 542 (Tex. App. –Au stin 20 06, pet. den ied). W e w ill
cons ide r, w eig h, an d ex amine all of the e v ide nce in the record, bo th i n s uppor t of and cont ra ry to the fin din g . Kloesel , 266 S.W .3d at 470. The dis tr ic t cour t’ s findi ng w il l be s et aside only if

it is so con trary

to the ov erw helm ing w eight of the evidence as to be clearly
w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust

. Id. B. A nal ysis Ly ons’ s fact ual i nsuffici ency arg uments are anal og ous to t hose he adv ances to pr ov e n o e v i d e n c e . L y o n s a rg u e s : ( 1 ) “ n o e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt s D r . B a xt e r ’ s t h e oryof
n e u ro p a t h y o r Ch a rc o t c o n d it io n b e fo re t h e A p ri l 5 , 2 0 0 4 , in ju ry” ; (2 ) “ t h e e vid e n c e sh o ws that there i s s ti ll no i ndi cat ion of neuropathy or C har cotco ndi ti on for sev er al months after the April injury ”; (3) “all the evi d e n c e s h o w s thatas of Ly ons’ [sic] seco nd inju ry in No ve m b e r 2 0 0 4 , t h e re is st il l n o n e u ro p a t h y o r C h a rc o tco n d it io n ”; (4 ) “ t h e e vid e n c e sh o ws Cha rc ot c ondi ti on first appears i n D ecember 2004” ; ( 5) “ the e v ide nce show s t hat
neu ropa thy first app ears in Jan uary 2005”; an d (6) “D r. Pete r Foox , the Comm ission’s d e s ig n a t e d d o c t o r fo r a n in d e p e n d e n tm e d ic a l e xa m a f t e r t h e No ve m b e r i n ju ry, ack now l e d g e d t h a tL y o n s ’ [ s i c ] A p r i l 2 0 0 4 i n j u r y h a d b e e n d i a g n o s e d a s a ‘ J ones Fract ur e.’ ” Ly ons pr esent ed no w it ness es at t ri al, and he bas es his arg uments on t he12

medic al re cords int ro duced i nto e v ide nce and reli ed on by D r. Baxter

. Al thoug h Ly ons dev otes approx imat ely t wenty -four

pag es of his appel lat e br ief to challen ging the factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence , he fails to cite an y auth or it y f o r his
arg ument. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8.1( i) ( prov idi ng thatthe br ief mustco ntai n a c lea r and
conc is e arg ument for

the cont enti ons made wit h a ppropr iat e c it ati ons to au thor it ies ). I n any ev ent, iti s t he s ole prerog ati v e of t he jur y to deter mine the w eig ht an d c re dib il it y of the
e vi dence

. See W

elch , 1 9 1 S

. W

. 3 d a t1 6 0

. E x a mi n i n g a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , b o t h fo r a nd ag ain st the j ur

y ’s ve rd ic t, w e cannot say that the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the jur y ’s findi ng that Ly ons did not suffer a c ompensab le in ju ry is s o weak, or ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of the ev ide nce, thatthe jur y ’s v erdic t s houl d be setas ide

. Id. at 160- 61. Ly ons’ s t hird i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III . J U R Y C HA RGE In hi s s econd i ss u e, Ly ons cont ends that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by deny ing hi s req uest ed defini ti on of “ inj ur y ,” w hic h i ncl uded ag g ra v ati on of pre -e xi sti ng cond itions. Rule 278 o f the T exas Rules of

Civ il Procedu re state s that“[f] ailure to su bm it
a d e f in it io n . . . shall not be dee me d a ground for rev ersal of the jud gmen t unle ss a subs tanti all y

co rrectdefini ti on . . . has been re q uest ed in w ri ti ng and tendered bythe par ty com plainin g of the judgme nt.” T EX . R. C IV . P. 2 78. Mo re ov er , r ule 273 sta tes that“ [a]
re q uest

. . . for .

. . defini ti ons . . . shal l be made separate and apar t from

. . . obj ect ion s t o the court’s charge.” T EX . R. C IV . P. 2 73. At the c harg e c onferenc e, Ly ons or all y obj ect ed to the defini ti on of i nju ry and
re q uest ed th at the follo w ing be added to t he defini ti on: “I nju ry al so inc lud es an ag g ra v ati on o f a p ri or i nju ry i f the ag g ra v ati on oc curs i n the co urse and s cope of employ ment.” How ev er , Ly ons made no w ri tten re q uestfor s uch a defini ti on. Beca use L yon s d id not13

make a w ri tten r eq uestfor s ubmis si on of thi s d efini ti on, h e has fail ed to preser v e thi s i ss ue. See Coley v. Baylor Univ. , 147 S.W .3d 5 67, 5 7 0 n .3 ( T e x. App.–W aco 2004) , re v’ d on other gr ounds , 221 S.W .3d 599 (Tex . 200 7) ; see als o Ger des v. Kennam er

, 155 S.W .3d 523, 535 ( Tex . Ap p. C or pus Chr is ti 2004) ( “W her e the compl ain t is thatthe tr ial co urt fail ed to s ubmita pa rt ic ula r defini ti on or ins tr uct ion , the c omplai nin g par ty musthav e present ed
a w ritten requestfor its inclusion, te nde ring the propo sed d ef inition o r instruction in subs tanti all y

co rrectw ordin g .” ). Ac cordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Ly ons’ s s econd i ss ue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Ly ons’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co ur t’ s j udg ment.
RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 5th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 9.