453 S.W.3d 590
Tex. App.2014Background
- Samuel Campos, an oilfield worker, claimed a workplace injury in 1999 and disputed his impairment rating before the DWC; his treating chiropractor (Dr. Mehaffey) rated impairment at 30% using the ROM model, while the Commission-designated doctor (Dr. McCarty) rated 6% using the DRE injury model.
- The DWC hearing officer adopted the designated doctor's 6% rating and denied reimbursement for travel to Dr. Mehaffey; the Appeals Panel affirmed, finding the designated doctor’s report had presumptive weight unless the other medical evidence carried the preponderance.
- Campos sued for judicial review in district court seeking adoption of the 30% rating and travel-expense reimbursement; he appealed the Appeals Panel decision and thus bore the burden of proof at trial.
- The Carrier (TPCIGA) moved for no-evidence summary judgment on multiple independent grounds: (1) the 30% rating was invalid as a matter of law because the ROM model conflicted with the AMA Guides; (2) even if ROM were permissible, Dr. Mehaffey misapplied it; (3) Dr. Mehaffey’s report failed Rule 130.1(c)(3) certification requirements; (4) no evidence supported travel reimbursement; and (5) attorney’s fees were unavailable because Campos, not the carrier, sought review.
- In the district court and on appeal, Campos addressed only the first ground (that invalidity under the AMA Guides was not presented to the DWC and thus could not be considered at judicial review), failing to respond to the Carrier’s other independent grounds.
- The trial court’s summary-judgment order did not specify the grounds it relied on; the court of appeals affirmed because Campos did not challenge all possible grounds supporting summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting no-evidence summary judgment based on invalidity of Dr. Mehaffey’s 30% rating under the AMA Guides when that issue was not decided by the DWC | Campos: The validity-at-law challenge wasn’t presented to or decided by the DWC, and Section 410.302(b) limits judicial review to issues decided by the Appeals Panel, so the trial court could not grant summary judgment on that ground | Carrier: Multiple independent no-evidence grounds supported summary judgment, including invalidity under the Guides, misapplication of ROM, noncompliance with Rule 130.1(c)(3), lack of evidence for travel reimbursement, and ineligibility for attorney’s fees | Affirmed. Because the trial court did not specify a ground, Campos bore the burden to negate all possible grounds and failed to address several independent bases for summary judgment, so affirmance was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Samudio, 370 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. 2012) (an impairment rating must comply with the AMA Guides to be legally sufficient)
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (non-movant cannot raise new fact issues on appeal that were not presented in response to summary-judgment motion)
- Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970) (appellant must attack every ground on which trial court could have based summary judgment)
- Rangel v. Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co., 333 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App. — El Paso 2010) (failure to address summary-judgment grounds on appeal results in affirmance)