From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:36:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8EDB3.DAE37DD0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8EDB3.DAE37DD0 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=84737 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed as Modified = and Opinion filed July 24, = 2008.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

_______________

 

NO. 14-06-00510-CV

_______________

 

THE KROGER CO., Appellant

 

V.

 

DAN BROWN, Appellee

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

On Appeal from the = 281st District=20 Court

Harris County,=20 Texas

Trial Court Cause No.=20 02-33970

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

 

O P I N I O = N

In this negligence = suit based=20 upon a misfilled pharmacy prescription, The Kroger Co. appeals the = portion=20 of a judgment awarding appellee, Dan Brown, damages for past=20 disfigurement.  In its sole issue, Kroger contends the trial = court=20 erred by denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the = verdict=20 (AJNOV@) and/or partial = motion to=20 disregard because the evidence is legally insufficient to support = the=20 jury=3Ds finding that Brown = sustained=20 disfigurement.  Because we agree with Kroger=3Ds contention, we = modify the=20 trial court=3Ds judgment to reduce = the award=20 of actual damages from $32,440 to $19,440 and affirm the judgment = as=20 modified.

I. =20 Background

Viewing the evidence = in the=20 light most favorable to the jury=3Ds verdict, in April = 2000, Brown=20 was diagnosed with a viral infection of his left innerBear.  His doctor = prescribed several medications, including Prednisone, a steroid. = Brown=20 filled the prescriptions at a Kroger pharmacy.  The = pharmacist=20 dispensed a lower dosage of Prednisone than prescribed.  = According to=20 Brown, his ingestion of the lower dosage caused the infection to = linger=20 until the mistake was detected.  Brown claimed the lingering=20 infection caused damage to his left inner-ear, resulting in = various=20 adverse effects.

Brown sued Kroger for = negligence and malice, seeking to recover actual and exemplary=20 damages.  The jury found that Kroger and Brown were both = negligent=20 and attributed 50% responsibility respectively.  The jury = also found=20 that Kroger did not act with malice.  The jury awarded $6,000 = for=20 past physical pain and mental anguish, $18,000 for future physical = pain=20 and mental anguish, and $26,000 for past disfigurement.  = Kroger filed=20 a motion for JNOV and/or partial motion to disregard, arguing = there was no=20 evidence to support the jury=3Ds finding regarding=20 disfigurement.   The trial court denied the motion and = rendered=20 judgment that Brown recover $32,440 in actual damages, plus = post-judgment=20 interest and costs.  Kroger appeals only the portion of the = judgment=20 awarding damages for past disfigurement.[1]

 

 

II. =20 Discussion

In its sole issue, = Kroger=20 contends the trial court erred by denying Kroger=3Ds motion for JNOV and = awarding=20 disfigurement damages because the evidence is legally insufficient = to=20 support the jury=3Ds finding that Brown = sustained=20 disfigurement.

A.       =20 Standard of Review

We review denial of a = motion=20 for JNOV under a legal-sufficiency standard.  Manon v. = Solis,=20 142 S.W.3d 380, 387 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2004, pet.=20 denied).  When examining a legal-sufficiency challenge, we = review the=20 evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged finding and = indulge=20 every reasonable inference that would support it.  City of = Keller=20 v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Tex. 2005).  We credit = favorable=20 evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregard contrary = evidence unless=20 reasonable jurors could not.  Id. at 827.  The = evidence=20 is legally sufficient if it would enable reasonable and = fair‑minded people=20 to reach the verdict under review.  = Id.

 Pursuant to = Texas Rule of=20 Appellate Procedure 34.6(c), this appeal is based on a partial=20 reporter=3Ds record.  = See Tex.=20 R. App. P. 34.6(c).  Kroger requested a partial = reporter=3Ds record consisting = of the=20 testimony of Dan and Diane Brown and any exhibits offered and = admitted=20 through their testimony.  In the request, Kroger stated that = its sole=20 issue on appeal would be a challenge to the sufficiency of = evidence=20 supporting the disfigurement finding.  See Tex. R. = App. P.=20 34.6(c)(1) (providing, if appellant requests a partial=20 reporter=3Ds record, appellant = must=20 include in the request a statement of issues to be presented on = appeal and=20 will then be limited to those issues).  Brown did not = designate=20 additional testimony and exhibits to be included in the=20 reporter=3Ds record.  = See Tex.=20 R. App. P. 34.6(c)(2) (providing, any other party may designate = additional=20 testimony and exhibits to be included in reporter=3Ds record).  Mrs. = Brown did=20 not testify at trial, so the partial reporter=3Ds record contains Mr. = Brown=3Ds testimony and one = exhibit.=20 Therefore, we review Brown=3Ds testimony and the = exhibit to=20 determine whether they are legally sufficient to support the=20 jury=3Ds finding that he = sustained=20 disfigurement. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c)(4) (providing, = if the=20 appellant complies with Rule 34.6(c)(1), appellate court must = presume=20 partial reporter=3Ds record designated = by parties=20 constitutes entire record for purposes of reviewing stated issues, = even a=20 challenge to legal or factual sufficiency of evidence to support a = specific fact finding).

B.       =20 Brown=3Ds = Testimony

The pertinent portion = of=20 Brown=3Ds testimony is = undisputed for=20 purposes of this appeal.[2]  =20 Specifically, Brown explained the adverse effects of the inner-ear = damage.  He described various Ainternal@ problems including = ringing,=20 pain, hypersensitivity to loud sounds, distortion of sounds, and = inability=20 to hear soft sounds.  However, he identified only one adverse = effect=20 that he characterized as disfigurement: to engage in conversation, = AI keep my head kind = of turned=20 down to the right so I can keep my good ear towards = you.@  He further = testified,=20 Athat=3Ds the only scar, I = think - -=20 visible scar, I think, I have from the whole thing, is hanging my = head=20 down.  Everything else is internal.@  Accordingly, = we must=20 decide whether Brown=3Ds turning his head = down to=20 point his Agood ear@ toward the speaker = when=20 engaging in conversation constitutes disfigurement.  For the = reasons=20 explained below, we conclude this condition does not constitute=20 disfigurement.

C.       =20 Definition of ADisfigurement@

Initially, we note = both parties=20 cite cases addressing disfigurement under Texas law.  = However, in=20 this case, no definition of disfigurement, much less the = definition=20 recognized under Texas law, was submitted in the jury = charge.  The=20 jury was merely asked to determine an amount that would compensate = Brown=20 for various elements of damages, if any, including A[d]isfigurement = sustained in=20 the past.@[3]  In addition, = the jury=20 was instructed, AWhen words are used = in this=20 charge in a sense which varies from the meaning commonly = understood, you=20 are given a proper legal definition, which you are bound to accept = in=20 place of any other meaning.@

Therefore, we measure = sufficiency of the evidence against the commonly-understood = meaning of=20 disfigurement.  See Osterberg v. Peca, 12 = S.W.3d 31, 55=20 (Tex. 2000) (holding, when no objection is made to jury issue, = sufficiency=20 of evidence is measured against charge given by court rather than = some=20 other unidentified law);  EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Jones, = 252=20 S.W.3d 857, 868B69 (Tex. = App.CDallas 2008, no pet. = h.)=20 (measuring sufficiency of evidence to support jury=3Ds finding of = liability for=20 Aunreasonable=20 collection@ based on common = meaning of=20 Aunreasonable@ absent definition of = legal=20 meaning in jury charge); Ancira Enters., Inc. v. Fischer, = 178=20 S.W.3d 82, 93 (Tex. App.CAustin 2005, no pet.) = (applying=20 definition of Amalice@ actually submitted = to jury=20 rather than stricter definition applicable in a retaliation=20 suit).

However, the legal = and common=20 meanings of Adisfigurement@ are quite = similar.  Under=20 Texas law, Adisfigurement@ has been defined as=20 Athat which impairs or = injures=20 the beauty, symmetry, or appearance of a person . . . that which = renders=20 unsightly, misshapen or imperfect, or deforms in some = manner.@  Goldman v.=20 Torres, 161 Tex. 437, 341 S.W.2d 154, 160 (1960); SunBridge = Healthcare Corp. v. Penny, 160 S.W.3d 230, 252 (Tex. = App.CTexarkana 2005, no=20 pet.).

With respect to=20 layman=3Ds language, popular=20 dictionaries contain similar definitions of Adisfigure,@ including:  = Ato impair (as in = beauty) by=20 deep and persistent injuries@;  Merriam-Webster=3Ds=20 Collegiate Dictionary 332 (10th Ed. 2002); = Ato blemish or spoil = the=20 appearance or shape of; deform.@  The American Heritage = Dictionary=20 404 (2nd Col. Ed. 1991).  Consequently, authority considering = whether=20 a condition constitutes disfigurement under Texas law might be = persuasive=20 in this case.

D.       =20 Kroger=3Ds = Argument

Kroger presents two=20 interrelated arguments to support its contention that = Brown=3Ds condition does not = constitute=20 disfigurement.  First, Kroger contends that, under Texas law, = disfigurement requires some sort of physical blemish to the=20 claimant=3Ds body.  Kroger = cites=20 Keeler v. Richards Manufacturing Co., in which the = plaintiff sued=20 the manufacturer and distributor of a compression hip screw that = broke=20 after implantation in her hip.  817 F.2d 1197, 1199 (5th Cir. = 1987).  On appeal, the court held that the evidence was=20 insufficient  under Texas law to support the jury=3Ds award of damages = for past and=20 future disfigurement.  Id. at 1201B02.  = Specifically, the=20 record did not support the plaintiff=3Ds allegation on = appeal that she=20 sustained extensive permanent scarring as a result of two hip = replacement=20 operations.  Id. at 1201.  The court further = opined that=20 the mere fact the plaintiff required crutches or a cane was not = evidence=20 of disfigurement, but evidence of physical impairment.  = Id. at=20 1201B02.[4]

Kroger also cites = Texas cases=20 upholding disfigurement findings when the injury at issue caused, = or was=20 expected to cause, a physical blemish to the claimant=3Ds body.  See, = e.g., Durham Transp. Co., Inc. v. Beettner, 201 S.W.3d = 859, 869=20 (Tex. App.CWaco 2006, pet. = denied)=20 (anticipated scarring from future back surgery); SunBridge=20 Healthcare, 160 S.W.3d at 252 (significant swelling, = distortion, and=20 discoloration of face and hands and tongue partially bitten = off);=20 Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Anderson, 78 S.W.3d 392, 413 (Tex. = App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2001, pet.=20 granted, judgm=3Dt vacated w.r.m.), = disapproved=20 of on other grounds by Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d = 113 (Tex.=20 2003) (three amputated toes, misshapen remaining toes, bottom of = foot=20 damaged, and scar from skin graft, plus probable future loss of = remaining=20 toes and bone overgrowth); Transit Mgmt. Co. of Laredo v. = Sanchez,=20 886 S.W.2d 823, 826 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1994, no = writ)=20 (discoloration on face due to burn); Goldston Corp. v. = Hernandez,=20 714 S.W.2d 350, 353 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 1986, = writ=20 ref=3Dd n.r.e.) (amputation = of toe,=20 scarring, and black discoloration of foot); Nw. Mall, Inc. v. = Lubri-Lon=20 Int=3Dl, = Inc., 681 S.W.2d 797, 804 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 1984, writ=20 ref=3Dd n.r.e.) (three past = hip=20 surgeries causing scars and anticipation of three future hip = surgeries,=20 each leaving bigger scars); Tex. Farm Prods. Co. v. Leva, = 535=20 S.W.2d 953, 957, 959 (Tex. Civ. App.CTyler 1976, no writ)=20 (amputation of little finger, ring finger permanently stiffed into = curved=20 position, and skin grafts and exposed tissue on hand).  = Kroger=20 contends that, unlike the claimants in these cases, Brown = sustained no=20 physical blemish, such as scarring or other deformity.

Second, Kroger = asserts that=20 Brown produced evidence of, at most, physical impairment of his = ability to=20 communicateCnot = disfigurement. =20 APhysical = impairment@ encompasses loss of = the=20 injured party=3Ds former lifestyle, = the effect=20 of which must be substantial and extend beyond any pain, = suffering, mental=20 anguish, lost wages, or diminished earning capacity. Patlyek v. = Brittain, 149 S.W.3d 781, 785B86 (Tex. = App.CAustin 2004, pet. = denied);=20 see Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 = S.W.3d 757,=20 772 (Tex. 2003).

Kroger relies on=20 Patlyek, in which the plaintiff injured his neck in an = automobile=20 accident.  149 S.W.3d at 783.  The court held that the=20 plaintiff=3Ds inability to rotate = his head=20 to the left was evidence of physical impairment because this = condition=20 obviously impacted day-to-day activities.  Id. at=20 787B88.  Kroger also = cites=20 other cases in which courts upheld findings of physical impairment = when=20 the injury affected the plaintiff=3Ds ability to speak or = communicate.  See, e.g., Beettner, 201 S.W.3d = at 867;=20 SunBridge Healthcare, 160 S.W.3d at 253; Ramirez v. = Fifth Club,=20 Inc., 144 S.W.3d 574, 591B92 (Tex. = App.CAustin 2004),=20 rev=3Dd in part on other=20 grounds, 196=20 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006).  Kroger argues Brown may not recover = damages=20 for disfigurement which more appropriately represent physical=20 impairment.

E.       =20 Brown=3Ds = Response

In response, Brown = correctly=20 asserts that the definition of disfigurement under Texas law does = not=20 specifically state that a physical blemish is required.  = See=20 Goldman, 341 S.W.2d at 160; SunBridge Healthcare, = 160 S.W.3d=20 at 252.  Further, as Brown argues, the Keeler court = did not=20 affirmatively state that a physical blemish is required to = establish=20 disfigurement.  See 817 F.2d at 1201B02.[5] =20 Additionally, as Brown notes, in the Texas cases cited by Kroger = upholding=20 a disfigurement finding, the claimant indeed sustained some sort = of=20 physical blemish; but, these courts did not affirmatively hold = that a=20 physical blemish is required to support a disfigurement = finding. =20 See Beettner, 201 S.W.3d at 869; SunBridge = Healthcare, 160=20 S.W.3d at 252; Schindler Elevator, 78 S.W.3d at 413;=20 Sanchez, 886 S.W.2d at 826; Goldston Corp., 714 S.W.2d = at 353;=20 Nw., 681 S.W.2d at 804; Leva, 535 S.W.2d at 957,=20 959.

Moreover, Brown = contends the=20 cases cited by KrogerCfinding that an = inability to=20 communicate constituted physical impairmentCdo not foreclose the=20 possibility a plaintiff may sustain both physical impairment and=20 disfigurement.  As Brown asserts, the Patlyek court = considered=20 only whether the plaintiff experienced physical impairment and did = not=20 address disfigurement.  See 149 S.W.3d 781.  = Brown=20 correctly notes that the same injury can cause physical impairment = and disfigurement, although the Texas Supreme Court has = cautioned=20 that a claimant should not be compensated more than once for the = same=20 elements of loss or injury.  See Golden Eagle = Archery,=20 116 S.W.3d at 772.  For instance, in two cases cited by = Kroger, the=20 evidence supported findings of both physical impairment and = disfigurement=20 where these elements compensated the plaintiff for different = aspects of=20 damages caused by the injury at issue.  See Beettner, = 201=20 S.W.3d at 868B69 (one = party=3Ds pain when = participating in=20 athletics, caused by back injury, supported physical impairment = finding;=20 and anticipated scarring after future back surgery constituted = future=20 disfigurement); SunBridge Healthcare, 160 S.W.3d at = 252B53 (swelling, = distortion, and=20 discoloration of face and hands and tongue partially bitten off, = caused by=20 nursing-home patient=3Ds fall from = wheelchair,=20 constituted disfigurement; and inability to communicate, = socialize, or=20 function in any meaningful manner was physical = impairment).

Brown primarily = relies on=20 Terry v. Garcia, in which a jury awarded the claimant = various=20 elements of damages for injuries sustained in an automobile=20 accident.  800 S.W.2d 854, 855 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1990, = writ=20 denied).  On appeal, the court held  the evidence was = sufficient=20 to support the award of damages for past and future = disfigurement. =20 Id. at 858.  The plaintiff had a stiff neck, he was = required=20 to turn his body to look left or right, and this condition was=20 permanent.  Id.  The court held that Aa change in = appearance, such as=20 a stiff neck, is sufficient to raise disfigurement as an element = of=20 damage.@  = Id.  Brown=20 argues that the Terry plaintiff=3Ds need to alter his = appearance=20 by turning his body to look left or right is analogous to=20 Brown=3Ds need to alter his = appearance=20 by turning his head to engage in conversation.

In sum, Brown = contends that no=20 physical blemish is required under Texas law to establish = disfigurement;=20 rather, Brown=3Ds turning his head = down to=20 engage in conversation is an injury to his appearance sufficient = to=20 establish disfigurement.

F.       =20 Disfigurement Analysis

Although the = definition of=20 disfigurement under Texas law and Texas authority discussing = disfigurement=20 have not affirmatively stated that a physical blemish is required, = we=20 conclude Brown=3Ds condition at issue = does not=20 rise to the level of disfigurement.  Further, although the = same=20 injury may cause physical impairment and disfigurement, we = conclude that=20 Brown=3Ds condition at issue=20 constitutes only physical impairmentCnot=20 disfigurement.

In particular, we = disagree that=20 Terry is instructive.  The Terry = court=3Ds discussion of = disfigurement=20 damages was scant.  See 800 S.W.2d at 858.  The = court did=20 not state that the plaintiff=3Ds need to turn his = body to look=20 left or right alone constituted disfigurement.  See=20 id.  Rather, the court referenced the stiff neck = itself as a=20 Achange in=20 appearance,@ although the court = did not=20 detail this change in appearance.  See = id. =20 Therefore, the court suggested the plaintiff=3Ds neck was constantly = maintained in a position that negatively impacted his appearance; = i.e., he=20 looked Astiff-necked.@  See=20 id.  In contrast, Brown does not have an omni-present = change=20 in his appearance.  Instead, he adjusts his head only when = engaging=20 in conversation.  Regardless, even if the Terry court = did=20 decide that the plaintiff=3Ds need to turn his = body to look=20 left or right constituted disfigurement, we disagree.

Instead, we conclude = that=20 Keeler is more persuasive in this case.  Specifically, = Keeler supports a conclusion that not every physical = movement=20 affecting one=3Ds appearance, even if = necessitated by an injury, constitutes disfigurement.  = See=20 Keeler, 817 F.2d at 1201B02.  The use of = crutches=20 and a cane, as in Keeler, requires a person to make a = physical=20 adjustment and obviously draws attention to the person=3Ds appearance.  = However,=20 these items were used to compensate for impairment of the=20 plaintiff=3Ds mobility and did = not=20 establish disfigurement.  See id.

Similarly, = Brown=3Ds turning his head = down to=20 engage in conversation does not establish disfigurement. =20 Brown=3Ds underlying injury = is hearing=20 loss caused by the inner-ear infection.  Brown does not have = any=20 external damage to his body caused by the inner-ear=20 infection.  Rather, Brown is required to make a physical = movement to=20 compensate for internal damage.  We hold that this = physical=20 movement necessary to compensate for Brown=3Ds hearing impairment = is not a=20 change in his appearance sufficient to constitute=20 disfigurement.

Moreover, as we have = discussed,=20 because no legal definition of disfigurement was submitted to the = jury, we=20 must address whether Brown could be considered disfigured under = the common=20 meaning of the term.  We conclude no reasonable juror could = consider=20 Brown disfigured based on any meaning of the term.  Clearly, = there=20 are numerous activities of daily life which require even a healthy = or=20 whole person to turn his head or make other physical = adjustments. =20 Specifically, it is common for every person to occasionally turn = an ear=20 toward another person to hear the person speak.  Therefore, a = reasonable person speaking with Brown would not consider him = disfigured=20 based on this action.  Rather, a reasonable person speaking = with=20 Brown would believe he is, at most, hearing impaired.

III. =20 Conclusion

In sum, we hold the = evidence is=20 legally insufficient to support the jury=3Ds finding that Brown = sustained=20 disfigurement.  Accordingly, the trial court erred by denying = Kroger=3Ds motion for JNOV and = rendering=20 a judgment that included an award for disfigurement damages.  = We=20 sustain Kroger=3Ds sole = issue.

The jury assessed = disfigurement=20 damages of $26,000.  However, the jury also found that Kroger = and=20 Brown were each 50% negligent.  Thus, Kroger was liable for = only 50%=20 of the damages assessed by the jury.  See Tex. Civ. = Prac.=20 & Rem. Code ' 33.012(a) (Vernon = Supp.=20 2007).  Therefore, $13,000 of the $32,440 actual damages = awarded in=20 the judgment represented recovery for disfigurement.  = Accordingly, we=20 modify the judgment to reduce the award of actual damages from = $32,440 to=20 $19,440 and affirm the judgment as modified.[6]

 

 

/s/       =20 Charles W. Seymore

Justice

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed July = 24,=20 2008.

Panel consists of = Justices=20 Fowler, Frost, and Seymore.


[1]  Brown also sued defendants named = Bridgette=20 Scott Johnson and Rashawn Dennis.  Dennis was named as an = appellant=20 on Kroger=3Ds notice of appeal and briefs. =20 Brown=3Ds wife, Diane, was also named as a = plaintiff in=20 this suit and an appellee on the parties=3D briefs.  However, only Mr. = Brown=3Ds claims and Kroger=3Ds alleged liability were submitted in = the jury=20 charge. Further, judgment was rendered solely in favor of Mr. = Brown and=20 against Kroger.  Therefore, we will treat Mr. Brown and = Kroger as the=20 only parties to this appeal.  Additionally, Brown filed a=20 cross-notice of appeal, challenging the jury=3Ds apportionment of 50% negligence to = Brown, but he=20 subsequently dismissed his cross-appeal.  Accordingly, we = will=20 consider only Kroger=3Ds appellate contention.

[2]  The one exhibit included in the = partial=20 reporter=3Ds record is a compilation of = life-expectancy=20 tables and is immaterial to our disfigurement = analysis.

[3]  We note, however, that the = damages question=20 was identical in pertinent respects to the Texas Pattern Jury = Charge=20 concerning personal-injury damages, which does not include a = definition of=20 Adisfigurement.@  See Texas Pattern Jury = Charges PJC=20 8.2 (2006).

 

 

[4]  The court first used the term = Adisability@ but then referred to Aphysical impairment,@ thus apparently using these terms=20 interchangeably.  See Keeler, 817 F.2d at=20 1201B02.

[5]  The Keeler defendant = argued the=20 plaintiff was not disfigured because she suffered no serious = scarring or=20 other physical deformity.  Id. at 1201.  The = court held=20 there was insufficient evidence of disfigurement because the = plaintiff=20 failed to substantiate her claim that she sustained extensive=20 scarring.  Id.  However, the court did not = affirmatively=20 hold that a physical blemish is always required to establish = disfigurement=20 under Texas law.  See id.  at = 1201B02.

[6]  The total award of actual damages = in the=20 judgment exceeded 50% of the total damages assessed by the = jury.  The=20 trial court may have included pre-judgment interest because it = separately=20 awarded post-judgment interest and costs.  However, the = judgment does=20 not reflect why the actual damages awarded are greater than 50% of = the=20 total damages assessed by the jury.  Specifically, the = judgment does=20 not mention pre-judgment interest, much less what portion of the = actual=20 damages, if any, was pre-judgment interest on the disfigurement = damages.=20 Additionally, in Kroger=3Ds brief, it merely prays that = Ajudgment awarding past disfigurement = damages be,=20 in all things, reversed and rendered.@  Accordingly, we have modified the = judgment=20 to reduce the award of actual damages by $13,000Crepresenting 50% of the disfigurement = damages=20 assessed by the jury.=20

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8EDB3.DAE37DD0 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_0009_01C8EDB3.DAE37DD0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/images/icons/close.gif R0lGODlhFwAPAMQAAMDAwP//nP/OnPf39+/v5+/e3ufn5+fWxt7e3s7OY6+vMpycAISEhISEAFlN MkpCQkpCOTEhAAAAhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEA AAAALAAAAAAXAA8AQAVxICCOJMCU6KgMQesGArwYUTouCTMAgzQMBkijYRMtYkgYTLCoFQGLqA74 eIoU0aw2ijBUbYuXEsl0Fh3otNqKYgTZt0Rut/PCF25DQUKQHAxBRCkKIj88IwIJCwcIXyhhLTFj iU1FYZJJSJWWW51mIiEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8EDB3.DAE37DD0 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_0009_01C8EDB3.DAE37DD0--