Navarette v. Temple Independent School Dist.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-4618,C-4618 |
| Citation | 706 S.W.2d 308 |
| Parties | 31 Ed. Law Rep. 642 Susie NAVARETTE, Petitioner, v. TEMPLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This is a workers' compensation case. The trial court disregarded the jury's finding concerning the duration of Susie Navarette's total loss of use of her left leg below the knee and rendered judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals affirmed that judgment. We reverse the judgments of the courts of appeals and render judgment for Navarette.
Susie Navarette was employed by the Temple Independent School District as a cafeteria worker. On February 1, 1980, Navarette was injured when she tripped over a dough mixer and broke her ankle. She returned to work on August 26, 1980. On November 15, 1981, she underwent a second surgery and had a pin removed from her ankle. She returned to work on January 6, 1982.
At trial, sixteen special issues were submitted to the jury inquiring about the nature and extent of Navarette's injury. In answer to special issue number twelve, the jury found that Navarette sustained a total loss of the use of her left leg below the knee from February 1, 1980, until January 6, 1982. On Temple's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court disregarded this finding and awarded compensation for total loss of use of the leg below the knee for 39 1/7 weeks. This thirty-nine week period corresponds to the two recuperation periods in which Navarette did not work: February 1, 1980, to August 26, 1980, and from November 15, 1981, to January 6, 1982. The court of appeals, in affirming the trial court's judgment, held there was no evidence to support the jury's finding that Navarette suffered a total loss of use in the interim period between August 26, 1980, and November 15, 1981.
The question before us is whether there is more than a scintilla of competent evidence to support the jury finding that Navarette suffered a total loss of use of her leg below the knee from February 1, 1980, to January 6, 1982. To sustain the action of a trial court in disregarding a jury's findings, it must be determined that there is no evidence to support those findings. In making this determination, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's findings, considering only the evidence and inferences which support them, and rejecting the evidence and inferences contrary to those findings. Williams v. Bennett, 610 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex.1980).
Unlike Travelers Insurance Company v. Seabolt, 361 S.W.2d 204, 206 (Tex.1962), relied upon by Temple, in which the injured worker (1) returned to his regular job within one week after the injury, (2) applied for and received unemployment compensation upon representation that he was able to work but could find no employment, and (3) was steadily employed at the time of trial at his regular work as a pipe fitter at higher wages, the evidence in this case shows that although Navarette was injured on February 1, 1980, she remained under the care of a doctor, an orthopedic surgeon, throughout the period in question and at the time of trial in January, 1984. Further, during this period, Navarette underwent two surgeries--in February, 1980, and in November, 1981. Her doctor testified that he expected to continue to follow up Navarette's injuries permanently on a "semi-routine basis." Indeed, Navarette stated that at the time of the trial in 1984, she was still taking physical therapy treatments.
Navarette returned to work from August 26, 1980, until November 15, 1981, but she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paxton v. City of Dall.
...job in which use of hand was required conclusively established claimant did not suffer total loss of use).60 Navarette v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308, 309–10 (Tex.1986) (return to work did not conclusively establish injury was not total as claimant could not do regular work and......
-
City of Keller v. Wilson
...in which use of hand was required conclusively established claimant did not suffer total loss of use). 60. Navarette v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308, 309-10 (Tex.1986) (return to work did not conclusively establish injury was not total as claimant could not do regular work and e......
-
County of El Paso v. Dorado
...of probative force to support the jury's findings, however, a motion for j.n.o.v. must be denied. See Navarette v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex.1986). A "no evidence" or legal insufficiency point is a question of law which challenges the legal sufficiency of the eviden......
-
Miller v. Western Elec. Co.
...alone is not conclusive, especially where the claimant has returned to work out of economic necessity. See Navarette v. Temple Independent School Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.1986); City of McAllen v. Alvaredo, 718 S.W.2d 903 Indeed, this was the law in Texas long before 1986. In the same yea......