 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Home Assurance Co. v. George6/12/2002
REVERSED AND REMANDED
This appeal is from a no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of John George ("George") against American Home Assurance Company ("American Home"). American Home filed suit seeking review of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that George was disabled from an injury he sustained during the course and scope of his employment. George filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment arguing that American Home had no evidence that George did not sustain a compensable injury. The trial court granted George's motion. On appeal, American Home contends that there is a genuine issue of material fact to dispute that George's disease was caused by exposure to toxins during the course and scope of his employment. Because we find that American Home's evidence does raise a material fact issue, we reverse the trial court's summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Statement of Facts
George, an electrician, was employed with N.H. Electric. American Home provided workers' compensation coverage to N.H. Electric on behalf of its employees. On January 7, 1998, George was rewiring an older home, and while crawling in the attic, he accidently dropped his flashlight into a pile of what he later described as animal excrement. This created a cloud of dust that George inhaled. He quickly left the attic, but almost immediately after this exposure, George began to complain of respiratory problems. After seeking medical attention, he was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease, which has progressively worsened. George learned that the home had been sprayed two weeks prior to the incident with cypermethrin, a pesticide.
Because of the development of his lung disease, George eventually filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A benefit review conference was conducted, and the review officer found that George had not sustained his injury while at work. However, following a contested case, the hearing officer determined that George had been injured on January 7, 1998, during the course of his employment and that he had been disabled since February 17, 1998. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed this finding. American Home appealed to the district court. George then filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment alleging American Home has not produced any evidence that George did not sustain a compensable injury. The trial court granted the motion and American Home now appeals.
Standard of Review
The purpose of a no-evidence summary judgment motion is to "pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof to determine whether there is a genuine need for trial." Robinson v. Warner-Lambert & Old Corner Drug, 998 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, no pet.). A no-evidence motion is similar to a directed verdict, and we apply the same legal sufficiency standard in reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment as we apply when we review a directed verdict. See Gomez v. Tri City Cmty. Hosp., Ltd., 4 S.W.3d 281, 283 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.). We therefore review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the no-evidence summary judgment was rendered, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). A no-evidence summary judgment is improperly granted when the non-movant brings forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Gomez, 4 S.W.3d at 283. More than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence "rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions." Id. However,
Page 1 2 3 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|