Lisa Atkins-January v. State Office of Risk Management
09-16-00439-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Lisa Atkins-January (appellant) slipped and fell at work on November 17, 2012 while employed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; SORM is the workers’ compensation carrier.
- A Division hearing officer found compensable injuries: right elbow contusion, left elbow contusion, left hip injury, right ankle sprain/strain; declined to find compensable left knee internal derangement or HNP at L4-L5 due to lack of medical causation evidence.
- The Division Appeals Panel affirmed, making the hearing officer’s decision final on March 9, 2015.
- January filed suit in April 2015 for judicial review of the Division’s decision; SORM sought discovery about causation and later filed a no-evidence summary judgment under Texas R. Civ. P. 166a(i), arguing no evidence supported causation for the knee/HNP claims.
- January did not file any response to the summary-judgment motion; the trial court granted summary judgment, affirmed the Division’s decision, and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
- On appeal, the Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) affirmed, concluding January waived appellate review by failing to file an adequate brief and by not presenting record citations or legal argument; the court declined to consider exhibits attached to appellant’s brief that were not in the trial record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Division’s exclusion of left knee and L4-L5 HNP as compensable was erroneous | January sought review of Division’s final decision but did not articulate an appellate legal argument in her brief | SORM argued no evidence supported causation and moved for no-evidence summary judgment | Waived by January; appellate court affirmed trial court and the Division’s decision because appellant’s brief failed to raise coherent issues or cite authority/record |
| Whether trial court properly granted no-evidence summary judgment | Implicitly that causation evidence existed or issues remained (not briefed) | No evidence was produced proving causation of the two conditions; essential element lacking | Affirmed: no-evidence MSJ supported by record discovery showing absence of causation evidence and appellant’s failure to respond |
| Whether the appellate court may consider exhibits attached to appellant’s brief but not in trial record | January attached additional exhibits to appellate brief | SORM opposed consideration; appellate court relied on rule barring new evidence | Court refused to consider documents outside the appellate record |
| Whether pro se status excuses briefing deficiencies | January appeared pro se and submitted a one-page brief with exhibits | SORM relied on briefing rules and precedent requiring compliance | Court held pro se status does not excuse failure to comply with briefing rules; issues waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1989) (pro se litigants must comply with rules but briefs are construed liberally)
- Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (error may be waived by inadequate briefing)
- Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007) (appellant’s burden to present argument; failure waives review)
- Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (Rule 38 requires discussion of facts and authorities necessary to maintain points)
- Univ. of Tex. v. Morris, 344 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. 1961) (appellate courts may not consider evidence not before the trial court)