From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:16:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01C84494.72105260" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C84494.72105260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=84105 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December = 20,=20 2007.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court=20 of Appeals

_______________

 

NO. 14-07-00016-CV

_______________

 

LINDA DOUGLAS, Appellant

 

V.

 

 

MOODY GARDENS, INC. AND TRANSCONTINENTAL = INSURANCE=20 COMPANY, Appellees

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;        =20 =             &= nbsp; 

On Appeal from the = County Court No.=20 3

Galveston County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause No.=20 49,822

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;    =20       

 

M E M O R A N D = U M  O=20 P I N I O N

Linda Douglas appeals = a summary=20 judgment in favor of her employer, appellee, Moody Gardens, Inc.=20 (AMoody@).  In its = motion for=20 summary judgment, Moody contended Douglas=3Ds personal injury = suit is=20 barred by the exclusivity provision of the Texas = Workers=3D Compensation Act = (Athe act@) because she was = injured in=20 the course and scope of her employment.  In her sole issue, = Douglas=20 argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment = because=20 Moody is estopped from asserting that Douglas was injured in the = course=20 and scope of her employment.  All dispositive issues are = settled in=20 law.  Accordingly, we issue this memorandum opinion and = affirm. =20 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

I. =20 Background

According to the = undisputed=20 summary-judgment evidence, on April 27, 2001, Douglas was employed = at a=20 hotel owned by Moody.  During her lunch break, she sat on a = curb in=20 the loading dock area of the hotel while smoking a = cigarette.  A=20 fellow employee inadvertently engaged the accelerator of a utility = cart,=20 causing it to roll over Douglas=3Ds leg.  Douglas = sustained=20 injuries requiring medical treatment.

During relevant = times, Moody=20 was a workers=3D compensation = subscriber. =20 However, Douglas did not timely file a workers=3D compensation = claim. =20 Instead, she filed this negligence suit against Moody.  = Nevertheless,=20 the issue of whether Douglas sustained a compensable injury became = the=20 subject of a workers=3D compensation = proceeding.[1]  The=20 trial court abated this suit because the Texas Workers=3D Compensation = Commission=20 (Athe = Commission@) had not issued its = final=20 determination.  A Commission hearing officer decided Douglas = was=20 injured in the course and scope of her employment, but she was not = entitled to workers=3D compensation = benefits because=20 she failed to timely file a claim.  A Commission appeals = panel=20 affirmed this decision.[2] =20 Subsequently, the trial court reinstated this = suit.

Moody filed a = traditional=20 motion for summary judgment, contending that this suit is barred = by the=20 exclusivity provision of the act because Douglas was injured in = the course=20 and scope of her employment.  See Tex. Lab. Code = Ann. ' 408.001(a) (Vernon = 2006)=20 (providing, recovery of workers=3D compensation = benefits is the=20 exclusive remedy for work‑related injury of employee covered = by=20 workers=3D compensation = insurance);=20 see also Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ' 406.034 (Vernon = 2006)=20 (providing, subject to certain exceptions, an employee of=20 workers=3D compensation = subscriber waives=20 common-law right to recover damages for  injuries sustained = in course=20 and scope of employment).[3]  The=20 trial court signed an interlocutory order, followed by a final = order,=20 granting Moody=3Ds motion and ruling = that=20 Douglas take nothing.

Additionally, in=20 Douglas=3Ds live petition filed = after the=20 Commission=3Ds final = determination, she also=20 sued Transcontinental Insurance Company, Moody=3Ds workers=3D compensation = carrier. =20 Douglas named Transcontinental in order to challenge in this suit = the=20 decision rendered by the Commission appeals panel, to which=20 Transcontinental was an interested party.  The trial court = also=20 granted summary judgment in favor of Transcontinental.

II.  =20 Summary Judgment in Favor of = Transcontinental

Preliminarily, in her = notice of=20 appeal, Douglas asserted that she is appealing the summary = judgments in=20 favor of both Transcontinental and Moody.  However, in her = brief,=20 Douglas does not assign error to, or present any argument = challenging, the=20 summary judgment in favor of Transcontinental.  Therefore, = Douglas=20 has waived any challenge to this summary judgment.  = See Tex.=20 R. App. P. 38.1(e), (h) (requiring, inter alia, that brief state = issues=20 presented for review and contain argument); Keough v. Cyrus = USA,=20 Inc., 204 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2006, pet.=20 denied) (recognizing appellant waives error by failing to brief it = on=20 appeal).  Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment in = favor of=20 Transcontinental.  We will address only the summary judgment = in favor=20 of Moody.

III.  Summary Judgment in Favor of=20 Moody

In her = summary-judgment=20 response and on appeal, Douglas does not challenge = Moody=3Ds contention that she = was=20 injured in the course and scope of her employment.  Rather, = Douglas=20 argues Moody is estopped from advancing this contention because, = shortly=20 after her injury, Moody posited she was not injured in the = course=20 and scope of her employment and did not change its position until = she was=20 time barred from filing a workers=3D compensation =20 claim.  Accordingly, Moody was required to raise a genuine = issue of=20 material fact on her estoppel theory.  See Lundstrom v. = United=20 Servs. Auto. Ass=3Dn.‑CIC, 192 S.W.3d 78, 84 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2006, pet.=20 denied) (recognizing, if movant establishes its right to summary = judgment,=20 burden shifts to nonmovant to raise a genuine material fact issue=20 sufficient to defeat summary judgment).[4]  =20

We review the summary = judgment=20 de novo.  Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d = 656,=20 661 (Tex. 2005).  We take all evidence favorable to Douglas = as true=20 and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in = her=20 favor.  See id.

To support her = estoppel theory,=20 Douglas presented a form TWCC-21 (used by a carrier to accept or = reject=20 workers=3D compensation = benefits), a=20 letter from Douglas=3Ds attorney to Moody, = and=20 Douglas=3Ds affidavit.  = The form=20 TWCC-21, dated May 1, 2001, includes a section entitled = ANOTICE OF REFUSED OR = DISPUTED=20 CLAIM,@ which was completed = as=20 follows: ACarrier disputes liability, = our=20 investigation determined: 1) No injury in course and scope of her=20 employment.  2) Employee was on lunch break and the injury = occurred=20 on a deviation.@  (emphasis = added). =20 In the letter sent by Douglas=3Ds attorney to Moody = in June=20 2001, he sought to resolve her potential claim against = Moody.  The=20 attorney stated, A[Douglas] was advised = by the=20 initial health care provider that your firm or insurer had = taken=20 the position that she was not injured on the job, and was = ineligible for=20 workers compensation benefits.@  (emphasis = added). =20 The form and letter do not necessarily indicate that Moody, as = opposed to=20 its carrier, posited Douglas did not sustain a compensable = injury.[5] =

Nevertheless,=20 Douglas=3Ds affidavit is some = evidence=20 that Moody asserted this position shortly after her = injury.  =20 Douglas averred, ADuring the course of = my=20 treatment I was advised that my employer, [Moody], disputed my = entitlement=20 to be treated under Workers Compensation, and I would be required = to make=20 alternative arrangements for payment for my medical = treatment.@  However, this = evidence=20 is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on her = estoppel=20 theory.  Douglas raises both equitable estoppel and=20 quasi-estoppel.  These theories are distinct and have = different=20 elements of proof.[6]

Equitable estoppel = may be=20 asserted to bar a defendant from raising a particular = defense. =20 Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 156 = n.1 (Tex.=20 2004).  To establish equitable estoppel, a party must prove = (1) a=20 false representation or concealment of material facts, (2) made = with=20 knowledge, actual or constructive, of those facts, (3) with the = intention=20 that the representation should be acted on, (4) to a party without = knowledge, or the means of knowledge of those facts, (5) who = detrimentally=20 relied upon the misrepresentation. Schroeder v. Tex. Iron = Works,=20 Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483, 489 (Tex. 1991) (citing Gulbenkian v. = Penn, 151 Tex. 412, 418, 252 S.W.2d 929, 932=20 (1952)).

Douglas did not = present any=20 evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on, at least, = the fourth=20 element of her equitable estoppel claim.  In fact, the=20 summary-judgment evidence negates the fourth element.  = Douglas was=20 required to file a workers=3D compensation claim = within one=20 year after the date of her injury.  See Tex. Lab. Code = Ann. ' 409.003(1) (Vernon=20 2006).  The evidence reflects that Douglas had retained an = attorney=20 by, at most, two months after her injury.  Therefore, she had = an=20 attorney to advise that her injury may have occurred in the course = and=20 scope of her employment and thus she needed to pursue a=20 workers=3D compensation = claim. =20 Accordingly, Douglas was not Awithout knowledge, or = means of=20 knowledge@ that she may have = been injured=20 in the course and scope of her employment, despite any contrary=20 representation by Moody.

Under the = quasi-estoppel=20 principle, a party is precluded from asserting, to = another=3Ds disadvantage, a = right=20 inconsistent with a position previously taken by the party.  = Lopez=20 v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 864 (Tex. = 2000);=20 Steubner Realty 19, Ltd. v. Cravens Road 88, Ltd., 817 = S.W.2d 160,=20 164 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 1991, no=20 writ).  The doctrine applies where it would be unconscionable = to=20 allow a party to maintain a position inconsistent with one in = which it=20 acquiesced, or of which it accepted a benefit.  Lopez, = 22=20 S.W.3d at 864; Steubner Realty 19, Ltd., 817 S.W.2d at=20 164.

In her = summary-judgment=20 response and on appeal, Douglas does not specifically use the term = Aunconscionable.@  However, = Douglas=20 suggests she was precluded from filing a workers=3D compensation claim = based on=20 Moody=3Ds initial position = that she was=20 not injured in the course and scope of her employment; therefore, = she will=20 receive no form of recovery if Moody is allowed to now reverse its = position. This reasoning is insufficient to raise a material fact = issue on=20 whether it would be unconscionable for Moody to rely on the = exclusivity=20 provision of the act as a bar to this suit, despite its earlier=20 inconsistent position.

We recognize that, = unlike=20 equitable estoppel, quasi-estoppel requires no showing of=20 misrepresentation or detrimental reliance.  Steubner = Realty 19,=20 Ltd., 817 S.W.2d at 164.  However, in this case, the = particular=20 quasi-estoppel/unconscionability reasoning offered by Douglas = necessarily=20 requires a reliance component due to her suggestion she was = precluded from=20 filing a workers=3D compensation claim = based on=20 Moody=3Ds earlier = position. =20 Therefore, we employ a similar analysis for her equitable estoppel = and=20 quasi-estoppel theories. 

As we have explained, = Douglas=20 had her own attorney to advise regarding her rights and = responsibilities=20 under the act, including the need to timely file a = workers=3D compensation = claim.  If=20 she had filed a claim, she may have been compensated for her = injury. =20 Alternatively, if the workers=3D compensation process = had=20 ultimately yielded a determination that her injury was not = compensable,=20 she could have filed a negligence suit without being subject to = the=20 exclusivity provision of the act.  Consequently, Douglas is = not=20 denied recovery for her injury based on Moody=3Ds inconsistent = positions. =20 Rather, she is denied recovery because she elected not to = timely=20 pursue a workers=3D compensation = claim. =20 Therefore, it is not unconscionable for Moody to rely on the = exclusivity=20 provision of the act as a defense to this suit.

In sum, Douglas = failed to raise=20 a genuine issue of material fact on her equitable estoppel or=20 quasi-estoppel theories.  Accordingly, we overrule her sole = issue and=20 affirm the summary judgment in favor of Moody.

 

 

/s/       =20 Charles W. Seymore

Justice

 

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion = filed=20 December 20, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges = and=20 Justices Anderson and Seymore.


[1]  Apparently, Moody filed the = required=20 employer=3Ds notice of injury, and its = workers=3D compensation carrier disputed that the = injury was=20 compensable.  Although Douglas did not timely file a=20 workers=3D compensation claim, she requested an=20 administrative decision on whether her injury was = compensable. =20 During the proceeding, she apparently urged the somewhat unusual = position=20 that her injury was not compensable, hoping to prevent a = subsequent bar to=20 this negligence suit against Moody.

[2]  Moody did not attach the = decisions of the=20 hearing officer or appeals panel to its motion for summary = judgment, but=20 these decisions were attached to the carrier=3Ds motion for summary judgment. and = referenced in=20 Moody=3Ds motion.  Further, the history of = the=20 workers=3D compensation proceeding in this case is = undisputed because, in her live petition, Douglas recited the = pertinent=20 facts.

[3]  Moody cited the Apersonal convenience and comfort=20 doctrine@ to support its contention that Douglas = was=20 injured in the course and scope of her employment although the = incident=20 occurred during her lunch break.  See generally = Yeldell v.=20 Holiday Hills Ret. & Nursing Ctr., 701 S.W.2d 243, 245 = (Tex. 1985)=20 (AYemployee in the course of his employment = may=20 perform acts of a personal nature that a person might reasonably = do for=20 his health and comfort, such as quenching thirst or relieving = hunger; such=20 acts are considered incidental to the employee=3Ds service and the injuries sustained = while doing=20 so arise in the course and scope of his employment . . = .@). 

[4]  Although, on appeal, Douglas = briefly=20 implies she was not injured in the course and scope of her = employment, she=20 does not appeal the summary judgment on this = basis.

[5]  In her summary-judgment response, = Douglas=20 argues the carrier was acting as Moody=3Ds agent and its representations are = attributable=20 to Moody.  We need not decide whether the form TWCC-21 and = letter=20 constitute evidence that Moody posited Douglas was not = injured in=20 the course and scope of her employment because her affidavit = provides some=20 evidence Moody asserted this position.

[6]  In her summary-judgment response = and on=20 appeal, Douglas generally cites the purpose of these = theories.  But,=20 she does not cite the elements of either theory, much less argue = she=20 raised a material fact issue on each element.  Nonetheless, = we=20 conclude she failed to raise a material fact issue on either=20 = theory.

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C84494.72105260 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C84494.72105260 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C84494.72105260--