Guillermo Ochoa-Cronfel v. Patrick C. Murray, 03-15-00242-CV

Background

Plaintiff (Appellant) Guillermo Ochoa-Cronfel sued Patrick Murray after a July 23, 2009 bicycle collision with Murray’s dog, alleging wrist and hand injuries requiring multiple surgeries.
Trial produced treating expert testimony from Dr. Ira Lown (hand/wrist surgeon) tying the July 2009 dog attack to subsequent ulnar impaction pathology and scapholunate ligament injury; Murray presented no contrary medical expert.
The jury found contributory negligence and awarded damages; Cronfel appealed asserting legal and factual insufficiency of the negligence and damages findings and that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing discovery sanctions.
Appellant’s reply brief responds to the appellee’s brief, arguing appellee misstated and mischaracterized record evidence (medical records, witness testimony, and discovery history).
Key factual disputes addressed on appeal: whether prior injuries (2005, 2012) caused the complained-of wrist pathology and whether there was evidence Cronfel acted negligently or that any negligence proximately caused his injuries.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of contributory negligence finding	Cronfel: No competent evidence or reasonable inference showed he was negligent or that any negligence proximately caused his injuries; jury’s finding is mere speculation.	Murray: Jury could infer negligence from testimony about riding speed/location and lack of evasive action.	Appellant urges reversal: record shows Cronfel’s testimony was consistent and Murray admitted he did not see the incident; appellant contends no more than a scintilla supported contributory negligence.
Factual sufficiency of damages/causation	Cronfel: Dr. Lown’s uncontradicted expert testimony ties injuries to July 2009 attack; no contrary expert to show prior events caused current injuries, so damages verdict lacks sufficient support.	Murray: Evidence of prior injuries (2005 bicycle incident, 2012 left-wrist injury) created reasonable dispute as to causation and need for surgery.	Appellant argues the evidence overwhelmingly supports Dr. Lown and that appellee presented no expert to show alternative causation; appeals asks to set aside damages as legally/factually insufficient.
Credibility and record characterization	Cronfel: Appellee misstates and omits record evidence; appellee’s credibility attacks on plaintiff and Dr. Lown are unfounded when full record is considered.	Murray: Points to purported inconsistencies in testimony and records to undermine plaintiff/expert credibility.	Appellant maintains record does not contain the conflicts appellee relies on; urges deference to jury cannot survive when supporting evidence is speculative.
Discovery sanction	Cronfel: Trial court abused discretion—sanction order violated Tex. R. Civ. P. 215 (no evidentiary hearing; awarded for objectionable conduct beyond Rule).	Murray: Sanction was justified by plaintiff’s discovery responses and conduct.	Appellant contends the sanction was procedurally improper and requests reversal on that ground as well.

Key Cases Cited

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review and reasonable inferences)
McDonald v. Dankworth, 212 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (discussing legal and factual sufficiency review in context of conflicting evidence)
Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. 1993) (circumstantial-evidence principles)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (mere suspicion or surmise insufficient as circumstantial proof)
Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. 2007) (expert testimony required for medical causation beyond common knowledge)
JLG Trucking, LLC v. Garza, 466 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. 2015) (expert-causation principles reaffirmed)
Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1989) (factual sufficiency/review standard)
Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (weight and preponderance standard)
Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (reversal when evidence supporting finding is so weak as to be clearly wrong)
Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1983) (circumstantial-evidence must transcend mere suspicion)