CompFox AI Summary
Mary E. Percell was awarded workers' compensation benefits for total and permanent incapacity due to a 1977 injury. The Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.) appealed the judgment, contending that the trial court's jury charge improperly commented on the weight of the evidence. Specifically, T.E.I.A. objected to special issues 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which assumed the fact of injury without conditional submission, despite the initial issue asking if an injury occurred. The appellate court found that the unconditional submission of these dependent issues constituted a prohibited direct comment on the weight of the evidence, in violation of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 277. This error was deemed reversible, as it indicated an opinion by the trial court on the verity of Mrs. Percell’s injury. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Percell is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Texas. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Texas.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Mary E. Percell was awarded workers' compensation benefits for total and permanent incapacity due to a 1977 injury. The Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.) appealed the judgment, contending that the trial court's jury charge improperly commented on the weight of the evidence. Specifically, T.E.I.A. objected to special issues 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which assumed the fact of injury without conditional submission, despite the initial issue asking if an injury occurred. The appellate court found that the unconditional submission of these dependent issues constituted a prohibited direct comment on the weight of the evidence, in violation of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 277. This error was deemed reversible, as it indicated an opinion by the trial court on the verity of Mrs. Percell’s injury. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.