Fort Worth Independent School District, Self-Insured v. Carol A. Seifert ( 2010 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00017-CV
FORT WORTH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT, SELF-INSURED,
Appellant
v.
CAROL A. SEIFERT,
Appellee
From the 413th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. C200400242
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Fort Worth Independent School District appeals a jury finding that a stroke
suffered by Carol Seifert is a compensable injury pursuant to the Texas Workers’
Compensation Act. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. §401.001 et seq. (Vernon 2006). The
District complains that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient for the jury to
have found that the stroke was a compensable injury and that the trial court erred by
not admitting the full opinions from the Benefit Contested Case Hearing Office and the
Appeals Panel. Because we find that the sufficiency issue was inadequately briefed and
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of evidence, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
The Facts and Procedural Background
Carol Seifert was a physical education teacher in the District when she suffered a
knee injury, which was undisputedly a compensable injury. Treatment of the injury
required four knee surgeries. During the fourth surgery, Seifert suffered a severe stroke
which left her permanently disabled. After an administrative hearing, the hearing
officer found that the stroke was not a compensable injury and the appeals panel
affirmed that finding. Seifert filed this action in the district court to challenge those
findings.
A jury was charged solely with the question of whether the compensable knee
injury extended to and included the stroke. The jury answered the question “yes,” and
the trial court entered a judgment in accordance with the jury finding. The trial court
denied the District’s motion for new trial. This appeal followed.
Legal and Factual Sufficiency
The District complains in issue one that the evidence was legally and factually
insufficient. More specifically, the District contends that because Seifert suffered from
moyamoya1 that her stroke was not connected or was insufficiently connected to the
1 Moyamoya is a rare disorder of the blood vessels in the brain known as internal carotid arteries. The
condition is characterized by stenosis (narrowing) or occlusion (blockage) of one or both internal carotid
arteries with subsequent formation of an abnormal network of blood vessels adjacent to the internal
carotid arteries. The term “moyamoya,” a Japanese word that means "puff of smoke," describes the
appearance of the abnormal vessels that form adjacent to the internal carotid arteries.
Fort Worth ISD v. Seifert Page 2
surgery to be a compensable injury. Both the District and Seifert offered expert medical
testimony regarding the causes of the stroke.
However, the District provides no argument or authorities regarding the legal
standard required to establish causation in cases such as this, nor do they give any
citations to the record to assist in a sufficiency analysis. Therefore, this issue is
inadequately briefed and, therefore, waived. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h) & (i). We
overrule issue one.
Improper Admission of Evidence
The District next complains that the trial court erred by refusing to admit
unredacted copies of the decision and order of the Benefit Contested Case Hearing
Office and the decision of the appeals panel. Seifert objected to the admission of the
exhibits on the basis of hearsay, lack of relevance, and unfair prejudice. See TEX. R. EVID.
801, 802, 401, 402, & 403. The trial court reviewed the documents and admitted them
after redacting portions of the report that contained the unstipulated factual findings
from those proceedings. It is unclear on what basis the trial court sustained Seifert’s
objections.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of
discretion. Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. 2007);
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1998). A trial court
abuses its discretion if it acts without regard to guiding rules or principles. Owens-
Corning Fiberglas Corp., 972 S.W.2d at 43. We must uphold the trial court’s evidentiary
Fort Worth ISD v. Seifert Page 3
ruling if there is any legitimate basis for the ruling. See id. We will not reverse a trial
court for an erroneous evidentiary ruling unless the error probably caused the rendition
of an improper judgment or probably prevented an appellant from properly presenting
their case to the court of appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a); Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Corp., 972 S.W.2d at 43.
The Workers’ Compensation Act contains two provisions governing the
admissibility of the Commission’s decision and record in a jury trial. First, the trial
court is required to “inform” the jury of the Commission appeals panel “decision” in
the court's charge. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.304(b) (Vernon 2006). This provision is
mandatory. The jury, however, is not required to accord the decision any special
weight. Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 528 (Tex. 1995). In
addition, section 410.306(b) allows the admission into evidence of the Commission’s
“record.” TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.306(b) (Vernon 2006). The Commission’s record is
comprised, in part, of the written opinion containing the commission appeals panel
decision. ESIS, Inc. v. Johnson, 908 S.W.2d 554, 560 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, writ
denied). However, the Texas Rules of Evidence govern the admission at trial of facts
and evidence contained in the Commission’s record. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. §410.306(b)
(Vernon 2006); National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 15 S.W.3d 525, 529 (Tex. 2000).
The District’s sole complaint regarding this issue is that the exhibits should have
been admitted in their entirety because they fit within the exception from the hearsay
rule as a public record or report pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8). See TEX. R.
EVID. 803(8). The redacted portions of the decision and opinion from the benefit
Fort Worth ISD v. Seifert Page 4
contested case hearing and the decision of the appeals panel both contain a review of
testimony about the causes of the stroke, including the substance of testimony of
persons who did not later testify before the jury and documents that were admitted at
the contested hearing but not admitted before the jury. We will assume without
deciding for purposes of this decision that the exhibits were admissible pursuant to rule
803(8) as a public record.
Our inquiry, however, does not end there. We must next determine if there is
any legitimate basis for the ruling. See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 972 S.W.2d at 43.
Based on the content of the redacted portions of the exhibits, we conclude that the
district court could have reasonably excluded those portions of the decision and
opinion of the Benefit Contested Case Hearing Office and the appeals panel’s decision
because they were in part irrelevant to the issue before the jury, and because they could
have confused the jury and the resulting confusion would have substantially
outweighed their probative value. See TEX. R. EVID. 401 & 403. The District made no
effort either at trial or in this appeal to demonstrate the relevance or the probative value
of the redacted portions of the exhibits. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the
trial court’s decision to exclude the redacted portions of those documents. By admitting
the redacted documents, the trial court informed the jury of the appeals panel’s
conclusion as required, and thereby complied with section 410.304 of the Labor Code.
See Tex. Prop. & Cas. Guar. Ass'n v. Nat'l Am. Ins. Co., 208 S.W.3d 523, 546 (Tex. App.—
Austin 2006, pet. denied) (The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the
Fort Worth ISD v. Seifert Page 5
admission of decision of appeals panel in its entirety pursuant to rule 403.). We
overrule issue two.
Conclusion
We find that the issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence were
inadequately briefed and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by redacting
portions of exhibits offered at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
(Justice Reyna concurs in the judgment only and notes, when a party files a brief
without proof of service, the Clerk notifies the party of the defect and he is given an
opportunity to cure it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3 (“A court of appeals must not affirm or
reverse a judgment or dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate
procedure without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or
irregularities.”). We should treat inadequately briefed issues in the same manner. I
would either address the merits of Fort Worth ISD’s first issue (as appellee Seifert was
able to do without difficulty) or notify Fort Worth ISD that its brief is inadequate and
“allow[] a reasonable time to correct or amend” it.)
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed March 3, 2010
[CV06]
Fort Worth ISD v. Seifert Page 6