Court of Appeals of Texas,
Houston (14th Dist.).
Lambert ADUMEKWE, Appellant
v.
NEW HAMPHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 14–12–00169–CV.
|
April 11, 2013.
On Appeal from the 269th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No.2010–81456.
Attorneys & Firms
Lambert Adumekwe, pro se.
Dana Gannon–Stundins, for New Hamphire Insurance Company.
Panel consists of Chief Justice DONOVAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
*1 This is an appeal from a final take-nothing summary judgment in appellant’s suit seeking judicial review of an administrative workers’ compensation decision. We affirm.
Appellant alleges that he sustained a broken jaw bone.
Appellant sought judicial review of the administrative decision in this suit filed December 15, 2010. See broken jaw bone or that these injuries were an extension of appellant’s compensable injury. Appellee also alleged that no evidence supported appellant’s general allegation of discrimination and retaliation. In the motion, appellee asserted that an adequate time for discovery had passed.
Appellant did not file any evidence in response to appellee’s motion. He did not request additional time for discovery. The trial court signed a final summary judgment, and the court subsequently denied appellant’s motion for new trial. This appeal followed.
Appellant, who is appearing pro se, filed a brief that failed to substantially comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, this court struck the brief and ordered appellant to file an amended brief. Appellant’s amended brief also fails to comply with the briefing rules. Appellant’s brief fails to clearly identify the issues for review and provide legal authorities supporting the relief requested. See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(f), (i).
We are to construe appellate briefs reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appellate review is not lost by waiver. See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex.2008).
A reasonable, yet liberal, review of appellant’s pro se brief reveals only appellant’s general contention that his work-related injuries included a broken tooth and jaw bone and that the workers’ compensation hearing was improperly decided. The trial court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment and ordered that appellant take nothing. Therefore, we will consider the propriety of the trial court’s judgment.
*2 We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 216 (Tex.2003).
Judicial review of a final administrative workers’ compensation decision is limited to the issues that were administratively determined. See Tex. Lab.Code § 410.302(b). Evidence shall be adduced as in other civil trials. See id. § 410.306(a). Appellant had the burden of proof. See id. § 410.303.
Rule 166a(i) provides that the trial court must grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. jaw, or that any such injury resulted from the work-related incident at issue. He offered nothing to show that he suffered a disability as a result of the compensable injury sustained February 15, 2009.
We cannot say that the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for no-evidence summary judgment. Accordingly, we order the judgment affirmed.