Escamilla v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

REYNOLDS, Justice.

The question presented in this workmen’s compensation proceeding is whether the jury’s findings that the injured workman did not sustain the specific injury and disability claimed are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. The question is answered in the negative. Affirmed.

Appellant Enos Escamilla, Jr., sought compensation for loss of use of his left foot. Appellee Liberty Mutual Insurance Company defended on the grounds that there was no injury to the foot, and that if there was any injury, it was one limited to a…