Katy Springs & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Favalora
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9027
Tex. App.2015Background
- On Oct. 5, 2010, employee Joseph Favalora was struck by high‑velocity wire escaping from a company‑fabricated pay‑off reel at Katy Springs, causing chest/neck injury and later cervical fusion surgery.
- The company‑made reel lacked safety features present on an alternative reel (a safety brake and containment arms) and had gouged arms and a three‑inch gap through which wire had escaped previously.
- Favalora sued Katy Springs (a workers’ compensation nonsubscriber) for negligence; a jury awarded $779,627.02 in compensatory damages across multiple categories.
- Katy Springs appealed, raising eight main issues: sufficiency of negligence and causation evidence; sole‑cause/contributory negligence; sufficiency of various damage awards; admissibility of medical billing evidence; alleged improper jury argument; exclusion of drug‑use evidence; jury‑charge errors; and denial of motions to reopen/mistrial.
- The court affirmed on most issues but modified the judgment to delete the $100,000 award for future mental anguish as legally insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Favalora) | Defendant's Argument (Katy Springs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of negligence (duty/breach/causation) | Employer owed nondelegable duty to provide safe machinery; reel defects and prior escapes show breach and proximate cause | Evidence insufficient; disputes over whether act was sole cause and whether expert necessary for causation | Evidence (lay and expert) legally and factually sufficient to prove breach and proximate cause; verdict affirmed on negligence |
| Sole cause / contributory negligence | Favalora testified he turned off lathe and was not sole cause | Katy Springs asserted Favalora’s conduct (not turning off lathe) was sole cause | Contributory negligence not a defense for nonsubscriber unless sole cause; jury could credit Favalora; issue overruled |
| Past medical expenses admissibility / amount (41.0105 & factoring) | Medical bills and section 18.001 affidavits show expenses were incurred/assignable; MedStar factor stands in providers’ shoes | Defendant urged recovery limited to amounts actually paid to providers (factor discounts) under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.0105 and Haygood | Where factoring assignments leave plaintiff liable/assignee (MedStar) holds providers’ rights, full billed amounts recoverable; bills and affidavits admissible; duplicative affidavits were harmless error |
| Mental anguish damages (past & future) | Favalora testified and third parties/physician corroborated depression and life disruption; sought past and future awards | Katy Springs argued evidence insufficient, especially for future mental anguish | Past mental anguish: legally sufficient. Future mental anguish: legally insufficient — $100,000 future award deleted |
| Physical impairment damages (past & future) | Testimony and neurosurgeon’s opinion that fusion reduces range of motion and limits activities supported impairment awards | Katy Springs argued insufficient evidence of separate/substantial impairment beyond pain and lost earnings | Evidence legally and factually sufficient for past and future physical impairment; awards upheld |
| Admissibility of drug‑use evidence for impeachment | (Defendant) sought to impeach Favalora with prior heroin use/hospital records | (Plaintiff) objected as extrinsic proof of specific conduct | Exclusion affirmed: extrinsic evidence of specific acts inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 608(b); trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Improper jury argument | (Plaintiff) counsel made evocative/punitive imagery and referenced excluded matters but court sustained objections/issued instructions | (Defendant) argued the arguments were incurable and prejudicial | Arguments were improper in part but not of a rare, incurable type; any error curable; issue overruled |
| Jury charge / discovery / motions to reopen | (Plaintiff) responded that charge properly submitted issues supported by evidence | (Defendant) argued multiple charge omissions/inclusions and denial of discovery/pretrial discovery on MedStar were error | Many charge sub‑issues were inadequately briefed or not preserved; preserved objections reviewed and overruled; discovery complaint waived/waived for inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. 1983) (no‑evidence standard when appellant did not carry burden)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review and jury credibility deference)
- Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011) (§41.0105 limits recoverable medical expenses to amounts providers are entitled to be paid)
- Wal‑Mart Stores Tex., LP v. Crosby, 295 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. App.) (doctor testimony sufficient to support aggravation of preexisting condition as cause)
- Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1984) (lay testimony may prove causation when common sense suffices)
- Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.) (requirements for proving mental anguish: nature, duration, severity)
- TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (rule excluding extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to impeach under rule 608(b))
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Anderson, 78 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.) (distinguishing physical impairment from other damage elements)