Mayes v. City of Midland
In a Worker’s Compensation Act case, the jury found a specific injury (permanent partial loss of use of the left hand) but no general injury, despite the worker's assertion of a general injury affecting the sympathetic nervous system. The Appellant, a Midland City police officer, suffered an injury to his hand/wrist while on duty, leading to symptoms like reflex sympathetic dystrophy. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in its jury charge by improperly defining 'general injury' and by submitting specific injury issues in a manner that constituted an improper comment on the weight of the evidence and misallocated the burden of proof. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.