Debbie Pattillo v. Sylvia Franco, 14-15-00628-CV

Minor rear-end collision on December 22, 2010; defendant Franco stipulated liability and the case went to the jury on damages.
Plaintiff Pattillo sought treatment roughly three weeks after the crash; diagnosed with a lumbar herniated disk and received epidural steroid injections in 2011 and 2014.
Medical records showed prior low-back and left-shoulder complaints and treatment (records from 2010 reflecting chronic low-back pain and a two-year history of left-shoulder pain), though Pattillo initially denied prior treatment at trial and was impeached.
After a one-day trial the jury awarded Pattillo zero damages; the trial court denied Pattillo’s requested jury instructions on (1) circumstantial evidence and (2) the Eggshell Skull (pre‑existing condition aggravated) rule.
On appeal Pattillo challenged the trial court’s refusal to give those two instructions; appellee argued the refusals were within the court’s discretion and harmless because the charge otherwise covered the controlling issues and counsel argued the theories to the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence	Pattillo argued the jury should be instructed on how to consider circumstantial evidence supporting causation	Franco argued refusal is not error as jurors understand they may draw reasonable inferences; courts routinely reject a required circumstantial-evidence instruction	Denied relief; court held refusing the instruction was not an abuse of discretion and any omission was harmless (jury could and did consider circumstantial evidence)
Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing an Eggshell Skull / aggravated pre‑existing condition instruction	Pattillo argued defendant must take her as she was and be liable for aggravation of any pre‑existing condition	Franco argued Pattillo did not plead or testify on direct exam that she had a condition making her more susceptible, the requested instruction did not track the pattern charge (PJC 28.9), and counsel argued the theory in closing anyway	Denied relief; court held refusal was within discretion, instruction was unnecessary/improper as submitted, and omission was harmless because the charge and argument allowed the jury to address causation and aggravation

Johnson v. Zurich Gen. Acc. & Liab. Ins. Co., 205 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. 1947) (trial courts need not give a special circumstantial-evidence instruction because jurors can draw reasonable inferences)
Larson v. Ellison, 217 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1949) (reinforcing Zurich that jurors of common sense may infer facts without special instruction)
Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. 1980) (harmless‑error standard for jury charge errors)
Lozano v. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. 2001) (circumstantial evidence may support competing reasonable inferences; credibility and choice of inferences are for the factfinder)
Gutierrez v. People's Mgmt. of Tex. I, Ltd., 277 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, pet. denied) (standard of review for jury charge/instructions; abuse of discretion test)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Middleton, 982 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (trial court has greater discretion over instructions than questions; instructions must assist jury, state law accurately, and find evidentiary support)
Adams v. Valley Fed. Credit Union, 848 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied) (refusal to give circumstantial-evidence instruction is not error)