Joe v. Parkhill

Lucius and Marva Joe appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of Billy Parkhill, M.D. The Joes sued Parkhill alleging he was negligent in failing to recognize complications resulting from an arteriogram and angioplasty procedure Parkhill performed on Lucius’ left renal artery. The Joes further alleged that, as a result of Parkhill’s negligence, Lucius’ right renal artery became blocked and his right kidney failed, eventually leading to its removal and his having to undergo dialysis treatments. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of Parkhill. The trial court rendered judgment accordingly.

On appeal, the Joes contend there was factually insufficient evidence for the jury to find in favor of Parkhill. When a party attacks the factual sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue on which that party had the burden of proof, he or she must demonstrate that the adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001). We consider and weigh all of the evidence and set aside the verdict only if the evidence is so weak or the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust. Id.