author: TERRY JENNINGS, Justice.

text:
    Harrison VINSON, Appellant, v. AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING, GlobalSantaFe Drilling Corporation, GlobalSantaFe Corporation, Global-SantaFe Offshore Services, Inc., GlobalSantaFe Operations, National Oilwell L.P., National Oilwell Varco, L.P., and National Oilwell Norway, A.S. (f/k/a Hydralift A.S.A.), Appellees.
    No. 01-08-00922-CV.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).
    April 8, 2010.

      Cortlan H. Maddux, John C. Schwam-bach Jr., Stevenson & Murray, P.C., Houston, TX, for Appellant.
    Bryan Patrick Vezey, Gene F. Creely, II, Joseph A. Ziemianski, Cozen O’Connor, J.D. Page, Attorney at Law, Robert Glen Moll, Steven P. Vangel, Hill Rivkins L.L.P., Timothy W. Strickland, Fowler, Rodriguez, Chalos, Flint, Gary, McCoy, O’Connor, Sullivan & Carroll, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Michael D. Wilson, Hill Riv-kins LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    Panel consists of Justices JENNINGS, HIGLEY, and SHARP.
   OPINION

TERRY JENNINGS, Justice.

Appellant, Harrison Vinson, challenges the trial court’s order dismissing, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, his personal injury lawsuit against appellees, American Bureau of Shipping (“ABS”); GlobalSantaFe Drilling Corporation, Glo-balSantaFe Corporation, GlobalSantaFe Offshore Services, Inc., and GlobalSantaFe Operations (collectively, “GlobalSantaFe”); and National Oilwell L.P., National Oilwell Vareo, L.P., and National Oilwell Norway, A.S. (F/K/A Hydralift A.S.A.) (collectively, “NOV”). In three issues, Vinson contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court’s order dismissing his lawsuit against all appellees does not dispose of all other parties and claims that were before the trial court, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and the trial court’s order dismissing his lawsuit violates his right to a jury “by forcing him to litigate in a country without American constitutional protections.”

We deny the motions to dismiss the appeal, reverse the trial court’s order dismissing Vinson’s lawsuit against appellees, and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion.

Background

In his petition, Vinson alleges that he suffered personal injuries while working as a crew member aboard the DEVELOPMENT DRILLER I (“DDI”), a semi-submersible drilling rig, when a derrick on the DDI failed and collapsed. GlobalSantaFe owned and operated the DDI, and NOV and ABS, along with other parties, designed, manufactured, assembled, marketed, and sold the derrick, which Vinson contends was “unreasonably and dangerously defective.” Vinson asserts claims for products liability, negligence, Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure against appellees and others.

NOV filed its motion to dismiss Vinson’s lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Texas has “no legitimate connection with the controversy” because Vinson was a resident of Alabama, Vinson sustained his injuries aboard the DDI in a shipyard in Singapore, all but one of the named defendants are foreign entities, and Vinson had received medical treatment in Singapore. NOV asserted that Singapore provides a remedy for Vinson’s personal injuries, access to proof is easier in Singapore, and Singapore has the most significant relationship to the controversy and an interest in determining liability. NOV also asserted that “all defendants” in the lawsuit agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of Singapore courts and to waive the statute of limitations to allow Vinson to refile his claims there. In support of its motion, NOV attached the affidavit and deposition of Michael Kucharski, GlobalSantaFe’s director of the semi-submersible building program and the building of the DDI, as well as an affidavit of Jason Lim, an advocate and solicitor in Singapore. ABS and GlobalSantaFe joined in NOV’S motion, but did not file any separate evidence.

In his response to NOV’S motion to dismiss, Vinson asserted that Houston is the forum with the most significant connection to the lawsuit. He noted that GlobalSan-taFe, who was his employer and the owner and operator of the DDI, is based in Houston and the DDI is currently working in the Gulf of Mexico. Vinson asserted that appellees negotiated and signed relevant contracts regarding the building of the DDI in Texas, Kueharski lived in Houston, GlobalSantaFe had hired the Houston office of Det. Norske Veritas (“DNV Houston”) to investigate the derrick collapse, the relevant persons and documents pertaining to the investigation are located in Houston, there are no persons with any significant knowledge regarding the derrick collapse and the subsequent investigation in Singapore, and there is no relevant evidence related to the construction of the DDI or the derrick collapse in Singapore. Vinson stated that all of his medical care, other than his brief initial emergency room visit in Singapore, occurred both in Alabama and Houston and much of his medical care was coordinated through GlobalSantaFe’s Houston office. Vinson attached as evidence to his response a letter from GlobalSantaFe’s Houston office authorizing maintenance payments to him, his medical records from the Singapore emergency room visit, Kuc-harski’s deposition, correspondence from Global SantaFe representatives in Hous-ten regarding medical care provided to Vinson in Houston, and documents showing that certain DNV Houston personnel are located in Houston offices.

The trial court granted NOV’S motion and dismissed “Vinson’s causes of action” pursuant to the conditions that appellees agree to waive the statute of limitations to allow Vinson to refile his suit in Singapore and to submit to the jurisdiction of Singapore courts. The trial court also stated, “This is a final appealable judgment” and “[a]ll relief not expressly granted is denied.” Vinson filed a motion to modify judgment and a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied.

After the trial court dismissed Vinson’s lawsuit, an entity, which Vinson and appel-lees refer to as “Bailey,” filed a special appearance and answer subject thereto. Although Vinson had named Bailey as a defendant in his petition, Bailey had not appeared or answered in the lawsuit prior to the dismissal and the overruling of Vinson’s motion for new trial. Thus, Bailey was not identified as a party joining in NOV’s motion to dismiss, the evidence the parties presented in regard to the dismissal did not concern Bailey in any significant detail, and the trial court did not include any reference to Bailey in its dismissal order or require Bailey to agree to submit to the jurisdiction of Singapore courts or waive limitations.

The trial court, in support of its dismissal order, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which it “noted” that Vinson was an Alabama resident injured on a vessel undergoing construction in a shipyard in Singapore; GlobalSantaFe was a Cayman Island company; Bailey, which manufactured and designed the derrick, was a Dutch company; and employees of JSL Shipyard, a Singapore company, were testing the derrick when it collapsed. It also noted that Vinson’s “point of origin” was Alabama, he did not travel through Texas to or from his employment, and he lived in Singapore at the time of the accident. The trial court also stated that “all of the fact witnesses to the accident who were present in or about the time of the accident are located in Singapore and/or they are from various other parts of the world (and not Texas),” Vinson received medical treatment in Singapore before returning home to Alabama and receiving further medical treatment, and “it was only after [Vinson] retained an attorney in Houston that he was referred by his attorneys to a doctor in Houston, who he saw on only two occasions over two years ago.” The trial court also concluded that Vinson did not qualify as a Jones Act seaman because he was not injured aboard a “vessel in navigation.”

In summary, the trial court concluded that Singapore, “where the accident occurred, where the fact witnesses to the accident have been located, and where [Vinson] first received medical treatment,” provides a remedy to Vinson; it is an adequate alternative forum; and a Singapore court could “best apply applicable Singapore law.”

Appealable Order

At the outset, we note that both Vinson and NOV have filed motions to dismiss this appeal. In his first issue, Vinson states that he filed his notice of appeal “out of an abundance of caution” and argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction over his appeal because the trial court’s dismissal order did not dispose of all parties. NOV asserts that “the grant of a forum non conveniens dismissal is an interlocutory order that is not appealable.”

NOV’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

In support of its motion to dismiss the appeal, NOV relies upon Martinez v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 49 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied). In Martinez, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals considered a trial court’s order dismissing the case for forum non conve-niens “pending the outcome of the resolution of this dispute in the Courts of the Republic of Colombia.” Martinez v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 49 S.W.3d 890, 891 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied). The trial court had stated in its dismissal order that it maintained “continuing jurisdiction over the parties so as to assist in the resolution of any discovery disputes that may arise between the parties and for which the Colombian Courts do not provide an adequate, convenient method of resolution.” Id. Based upon this statement, the court of appeals concluded that the order was “interlocutory and not a final judgment.” Id. The court did not state that forum non conveniens dismissal orders are generally non-appeal-able. The trial court’s dismissal order in the instant case does not contain a provision similar to the one discussed in Martinez. NOV also cites Fowler v. Fowler, No. 10-01-294-CV, 2004 WL 68106 (Tex.App.-Waco Jan. 14, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.). However, Fowler represents one of the only, if not the only, Texas case to have stated, in general terms, that “[a] ruling on a plea of forum non conveniens is not an appealable order.” Fowler, 2004 WL 68106, at *2. In support of this general statement, Fowler cites only Martinez, which is substantively distinguishable. Id.

We conclude that to the extent that Fowler and Martinez could be construed to hold that forum non conveniens dismissal orders are generally not final appealable orders, Fowler and Martinez go against the great majority of Texas and federal authorities indicating the contrary. See, e.g., VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex.1993) (remanding case to court of appeals for determination of appeal of trial court’s order granting forum non conveniens dismissal); Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Quixtar, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, pet. filed) (reviewing, and reversing, trial court’s forum non conveniens dismissal); Lalila v. Parker Drilling Co., No. 01-07-00281-CV, 2009 WL 618248, at *6 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 12, 2009, pet. denied) (mem.op.) (reviewing, and affirming, trial court’s forum non conveniens dismissal). Although most, if not all, of the Texas cases reviewing forum non con-veniens dismissal orders lack any significant discussion of the general ability to appeal such orders, we conclude that “[t]he appealability of forum non conveniens dismissal orders is so well established, and so much in conformity with the ordinary rule that dismissal of an entire action is final, that most appeals are decided without commenting on jurisdiction.” See 15A Chaeles Alan Weight, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3914.12, at n. 23 (3d ed.2009) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981)); see also Abad v. Bayer Corp., 563 F.3d 663, 665 (7th Cir.2009) (stating that “dismissal of a case on grounds of forum non conveniens is deemed a final judgment appealable ... even though it does not end the litigation”); 32 Am.Jur.2d Federal Courts § 1359 (2010) (stating that granting of forum non conveniens motion is final appealable judgment “even when the order of dismissal is conditional”).

Accordingly, we deny NOV’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Vinson’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

In response to Vinson’s argument that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, NOV asserts that Bailey’s special appearance did not affect the finality of the order and “[t]he fact that the dismissal order does not mention Bailey does not matter if it is clear, as here, that the trial court intended to dispose of the entire case.”

NOV, GlobalSantaFe, and ABS, the only defendants who had answered and appeared in the lawsuit at the time NOV filed its motion to dismiss, all joined the motion and agreed to waive limitations and submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts to allow Vinson to refile there. In granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court cited appellees’ stipulations, expressly dismissed “Vinson’s causes of action” without any limitation, and stated, “This is a final appealable judgment” and “[a]ll relief not expressly granted is denied.”

Only after the trial court had ordered the dismissal of all of ‘Vinson’s causes of action” in what it intended to constitute a final, appealable judgment, and only after the trial court had denied Vinson’s motions to modify judgment and for new trial, did Bailey, for the first time, file its special appearance, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over it.

The special appearance filed by Bailey did not, as asserted by Vinson, have the effect of destroying the finality of the trial court’s dismissal order, which disposed of all of Vinson’s claims pending before the trial court. We recognize that the Texas Supreme Court has explained that “[a]n order does not dispose of all claims and all parties merely because” the words “final” and “appealable” appear in the order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex.2001). We also recognize that the order in this case does not have the exact language suggested by the supreme court as providing “no doubt” as to the finality of a judgment. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205-06 (suggesting, “This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appeal-able”). However, the supreme court in Lehmann also explained that “a judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal if “either it actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its language, or it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties.” Id. at 192-93. A judgment is final “if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record." Id. at 195. The supreme court noted that “whether a judicial decree is a final judgment must be determined from its language and the record in the case.” Id. at 195, 205-06. We conclude, based upon the language used by the trial court in dismissing Vinson’s causes of action without any limitation, as well as our review of the entire record in this case, that the trial court’s forum non conveniens dismissal order is final and ap-pealable.

We deny Vinson’s motion to dismiss the appeal and overrule his first issue.

Forum Non Conveniens

In his second and third issues, Vinson argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens because “the record is devoid of any probative evidence that Singapore would be a more convenient forum than Houston or that maintaining the lawsuit here would work a substantial injustice on [NOV], GlobalSantaFe and ABS.” He further argues that Houston is actually the most convenient forum because NOV, GlobalSantaFe, and ABS have their headquarters here, most of the relevant fact witnesses are in Houston, and all relevant documents are in Houston. He asserts that the trial court’s dismissal would require him to pursue his claims in Singapore, where none of the critical witnesses reside and which does not provide the right to trial by jury.

We review a trial court’s decision about whether to dismiss a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion. In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.2008). A court abuses its discretion if its decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to guiding principles. Id.

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides,

If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties a claim or action to which this section applies would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and shall stay or dismiss the claim or action. In determining whether to grant a motion to stay or dismiss an action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court may consider whether:
(1) an alternate forum exists in which the claim or action may be tried;
(2) the alternate forum provides an adequate remedy;
(3) maintenance of the claim or action in the courts of this state would work a substantial injustice to the moving party;
(4) the alternate forum, as a result of the submission of the parties or otherwise, can exercise jurisdiction over all the defendants properly joined to the plaintiffs claim;
(5) the balance of the private interests of the parties and the public interest of the state predominate in favor of the claim or action being brought in an alternate forum, which shall include consideration of the extent to which an injury or death resulted from acts or omissions that occurred in this state; and
(6) the stay or dismissal would not result in unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.

Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 3.04, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 854 (amended 2005) (current version. at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.051 (Vernon 2008)). After the Legislature amended section 71.051 in 2003, section 71.051 no longer “contain[ed] language placing the burden of proof on a particular party in regard to the factors” and did not “require that a party prove each factor.” In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 686. Rather, section 71.051 “simply requires the trial court to consider the factors, and it must do so to the extent the factors apply.” Id. at 687. Moreover, “[t]o the extent evidence is necessary to support the positions of the parties, the trial court must base its findings and decision on the weight of the evidence, and certainly is entitled to take into account the presence or absence of evidence as to some issue or position of a party.” Id.

Adequate Alternative Forum

We first consider whether Singapore offers an adequate alternative forum. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.051(b)(l)-(2). Vinson argues that Singapore is not an adequate alternative forum primarily because it deprives him of “his constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial,” and he complains that dismissing his case to Singapore would result “in an American citizen being forced to pursue his claims against three Houston-based businesses [NOV, GlobalSantaFe, and ABS] and a Norwegian corporation [Bailey] in Southeast Asia under Singaporean law.”

“Ordinarily, an alternate forum is shown if the defendant is ‘amenable to process’ in the other jurisdiction.” In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 688 (citing Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 254 n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 252). Moreover, “[tjhat the substantive law of an alternative forum maybe less favorable to the plaintiff is entitled to little, if any, weight.” In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 678 (Tex.2007). Although “[t]here may be circumstances where an alternate forum is not adequate because the remedies it offers are so unsatisfactory that they really comprise no remedy at all,” “comparative analyses of procedures and substantive law in different forums should be given little weight in forum non conveniens analysis because such analyses pose significant practical problems.” In re General Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 688. Accordingly, “a comparative analysis of the procedures, rights, and remedies” available in Texas and Singapore “should only be given weight” if Singapore “would in substance provide no remedy at all.” Id.; see also In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d at 678 (stating that “an alternative forum is adequate if the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, even though they may not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in an American court”) (citations omitted); Gomez de Hernandez v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, L.L.C., 204 S.W.3d 473, 483 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied) (stating that “primary consideration is whether the alternate forum entitles appellants to a remedy for their losses, even if compensation for their injuries is less than what may be awarded in a Texas court”).

Here, NOY, GlobalSantaFe, and ABS have all consented to condition the forum non conveniens dismissal upon their waiving of the limitations bar and submitting to the jurisdiction of Singapore courts. See Tex. Civ. Piíac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.051(c). NOV, in support of its motion to dismiss, attached an affidavit from Jason Lim, an advocate and solicitor in Singapore and a partner in a law firm in Singapore, who testified that Singapore has a common law system modeled on the English system, Singapore courts have jurisdiction over personal injury claims when defendants have submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts, the judge in Singapore courts is the “arbiter of both facts and law,” and a successful plaintiff in a tort or negligence action in Singapore “can expect to recover damages, interests, and costs” in an amount determined by the court. We conclude that NOV presented evidence demonstrating that Singapore would allow Vinson “some recovery” for the personal injuries he sustained and, thus, that Singapore constitutes an adequate alternative forum. See Berg v. AMF Inc., 29 S.W.3d 212, 217 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (concluding that because Canadian law would allow some recovery, appellees demonstrated adequate remedy under Canadian law).

In regard to Vinson’s complaint about the lack of the right to trial by jury in Singapore, we recognize that in In re General Electric, the Texas Supreme Court, in analyzing whether state and federal courts in Maine provided an adequate alternative forum for the plaintiffs claims, noted that the courts in the alternative forum were similarly bound to afford the plaintiff the rights to a jury trial and due process under the Constitution. 271 S.W.3d at 689 (citing U.S. Const. amend. VII, amend XIV, § 1). Based, in part, upon these considerations, the supreme court concluded that Maine courts and a federal multi-district litigation panel to which the case could eventually be assigned fell “within the Legislature’s intent that the alternate forum be one ⅛ which the claim or action may be tried.’ ” Id. (citing Tex. Civ. PRac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.051(b)(1)). However, the reasoning of the supreme court in In re General Electric does not compel the conclusion that a forum is inadequate simply because it does not guarantee a plaintiff the right to a jury trial, even if that plaintiff is an American citizen. Rather, the right to a jury trial is one of several factors that may be considered by a court in determining the adequacy of an alternate forum. Additionally, other persuasive authorities indicate that the lack of the right to a jury trial does not, by itself, necessitate a finding that an alternative forum is inadequate. See Zermeno v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 246 F.Supp.2d 646, 659 (S.D.Tex.2003) (“Neither discovery limitations nor the lack of a jury trial in a foreign forum makes that forum inadequate.”); Tjontveit v. Den Norske Bank ASA, 997 F.Supp. 799, 807 (S.D.Tex.1998) (lack of jury trial does not render remedy inadequate); see also 14D ChaRles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3828.3, at 689 (3d ed.2009) (stating that bar for establishing that alternative forum is adequate “historically has been quite low” and that “absence of the right to a jury trial ... normally will not prevent dismissal”).

Private and Public Interest Factors

We next consider the balance of the relevant private and public interest factors. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.051(b)(5). The private interest factors that are to be generally considered are the ease of access to proof, the availability of compulsory process for the attendance of unwilling witnesses, the cost of obtaining willing witnesses, the possibility of viewing the premises, and other practical problems that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 691 (citing Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839); In re Omega Protein, Inc., 288 S.W.3d 17, 20 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding). Generally, the public interest factors to be considered are the administrative difficulties related to court congestion, burdening the people of a community with jury duty when they have no relation to the litigation, local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, and trying a case in the forum that is at home with the law that governs the case. In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 691 (citing Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839); In re Omega Protein, Inc., 288 S.W.3d at 21.

NOV asserts that “for most of the relevant evidence of liability and damages in this case, Singapore is the forum with the most ease in access of proof,” the evidence regarding the derrick failure and the derrick repairs are located in Singapore, and “Texas has no means of ready access to those sources of proof.” NOV does not provide citations to the record to support these assertions, and these assertions are not borne out by the record before us.

Kucharski, GlobalSantaFe’s director of the DDI, testified that the files and documents relating to the DDI, the collapse of the derrick, and the subsequent investigation are located partly at GlobalSantaFe’s building on Memorial Drive in Houston and partly at a storage facility “somewhere” in the United States. Kucharski also stated that the documents are under GlobalSantaFe’s control and accessible in Houston. In fact, Kucharski disagreed with the assertion that “almost all of the evidence or sources of proof relating to the construction of the DDI and the investigation following the failure” of the derrick are located in Singapore. When asked whether a person who visited the Singapore shipyard where the DDI was constructed would see any evidence of the DDI, Kucharski responded, “Hopefully not.” It is undisputed that in 2005, following the accident and repairs, the DDI sailed to the Gulf of Mexico.

Kucharski further testified that he knew of no remaining physical evidence located in Singapore, but NOV stresses that Kuc-harski also confirmed that none of the physical evidence related to the derrick collapse was brought back to Houston. Specifically, when asked if any evidence was salvaged and kept in Singapore, Kuc-harski stated that he “believe[d] some of it was,” and he stated that NOV had taken some of the equipment to a facility in Singapore. However, he conceded that he did not know if any such evidence still existed and he had “no idea” where any pieces of the derrick were actually located. Although he admitted that NOV had become the owner of the property, NOV did not present any evidence, nor did it even specifically assert, that salvaged pieces of the derrick still existed and, if so, that they remain in Singapore.

Vinson concedes that his original medical records from his emergency room visit following the incident are located in Singapore. However, those records total five pages, copies have been produced to appel-lees in this case, and they are in the record before us. Vinson also cites to evidence in the record showing that, after the incident, GlobalSantaFe arranged for Vinson to come to Houston to receive medical treatment from GlobalSantaFe’s company doctor and to be seen at a pain care center in Houston. Vinson notes that his medical records, other than his minimal records from the emergency room visit, are located in Alabama and Texas, not Singapore.

In regard to the location of witnesses, NOV refers to Vinson’s deposition as proof that “almost all of the witnesses that Vinson considered relevant [are] in Singapore.” As stated above, Vinson’s deposition does not appear in the record -before us, so we cannot consider these references on appeal. NOV also cites Kucharski’s deposition in support of its argument that the location of witnesses favors Singapore. First, NOV notes that Kucharski testified that the witnesses to the incident were in Singapore “at the time” of the accident. But, NOV does not cite to any evidence that the witnesses in the shipyard at the time of the incident who would also likely be trial witnesses are still located in Singapore. Our inquiry focuses on the parties’ ability to obtain evidence and testimony from potential witnesses with knowledge relevant to Vinson’s claims. See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 528, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 1953, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988). We do not focus on the physical location of the witnesses at the time of the incident.

NOV also refers us to a chart that it created of “every witness mentioned” by Kucharski in his deposition. In its chart, NOV separates those witnesses who live in Houston from those who do not. NOV asserts that its chart displays that “most of the potential witnesses do not reside in Houston and are outside the subpoena range of a Harris County district court,” but NOV does not identify any unwilling, non-party witnesses in its briefing. We note that to the extent NOV’S chart includes unwilling, non-party witnesses, many of the witnesses identified as being outside of the subpoena range of a Harris County district court would also be outside the subpoena range of a Singapore court. Additionally, NOV, in its chart, does not indicate why many of the alleged “potential witnesses” would even be called to provide testimony at trial. See Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. 517, 528, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 1958 (stating that to examine relative ease of access to sources of proof and availability of witnesses, court must scrutinize substance of dispute to evaluate proof required and to determine whether “pieces of evidence cited by the parties are critical, or even relevant, to the plaintiffs cause of action and to any potential defenses to the action”). NOV’S implied assertion that all of the witnesses identified in its chart would need to be deposed or called at trial to offer testimony relevant to Vinson’s claims is contradicted by Kueharski’s testimony.

Kueharski, who works for GlobalSan-taFe at its corporate headquarters in Houston and who lives in Cypress, Texas, testified that he worked from Houston as the program director involved in building the DDI at the time of the incident. Kuc-harski traveled from Houston to Singapore approximately one week per month during the building of the DDI, and he was at the shipyard at the time the derrick collapsed. Kueharski confirmed that he would be the “most knowledgeable” person regarding the “construction, collapse, and repair of the DDI.” During this time, Kueharski reported to Pharr Smith, who also worked at GlobalSantaFe in Houston and who continued to live in Houston at the time of Kueharski’s deposition. During the building of the DDI, Kueharski supervised a small team of technical advisers located in Houston as well as a construction team that worked in Singapore. Kueharski explained that all the GlobalSantaFe personnel involved in the DDI project had since left GlobalSantaFe, except for he and Smith. He stated that the project manager lived in the United Kingdom, two of the discipline engineers lived in Singapore, the operations manager lived in Australia, and the rig manager lived in Alabama. Nevertheless, Kueharski reiterated that he was the person most knowledgeable on the relevant matters.

Kueharski further testified that, following the derrick collapse, he hired DNV Houston to investigate the cause of the collapse and conduct a root cause analysis. Charles McCardy, Kueharski’s primary contact at DNV Houston, and Richard Helmersson, who conducted the root cause analysis for DNV Houston, were both located in Houston at the time of the investigation. Kueharski believed that both men remained in Houston at the time of his deposition. Kueharski identified another DNV consultant, Norman Dyer, who was located in Houston at the time of the incident and who had verified the DNV report. Kueharski further stated that, in addition to the report and root cause analysis prepared by DNV, he also hired DNV to do a “total independent design verification of the derrick.” This involved a totally different department and different DNV group of people also located in Houston. Vinson notes that all of these Houston based witnesses are critical to his claims, are within subpoena range of the trial court to the extent they are unwilling witness, are “easily available” in Houston, and the cost of their attendance at a Harris County District Court would be modest. Vinson also notes that the medical providers he saw through GlobalSantaFe are located in Houston.

In regard to the personnel from the shipyard identified by NOV, Kucharski testified that because these persons were not directly involved in the design, engineering, or fabrication of the derrick, “there was no relevance” in discussing those issues with those shipyard personnel Kucharski agreed that there is no one in Singapore employed by the shipyard company that has any relevant knowledge of the collapse, and DNV did not even interview any shipyard personnel in conducting its investigation. Kucharski conceded that he knew of no persons in Singapore who were involved in the design or fabrication of the derrick. He also disagreed with the assertion that “almost all of the witnesses with knowledge about the DDI, its construction, [and] the derrick failure” are located in Singapore. When asked if there is any evidence from the investigation that the condition of the barge or the rigging in the shipyard had anything to do with the incident, Kucharski replied, “[a]bsolutely not.”

NOV asserts that it was “not required to identify specific -witnesses or evidence” that it would be unable to obtain in a Texas forum in order for the case to be dismissed to a Singapore forum. In In re General Electric, the supreme court stated that “detail regarding which witnesses would be called and what evidence would be unavailable is not necessary in a case such as this where the practical problems of trying a personal injury case hundreds of miles from the scene of the occurrence, the place where the lay witnesses reside, and where most other evidence is located is manifest.” 271 S.W.3d at 691. But, In re General Electric involved a lawsuit brought by a life-long Maine resident who claimed injury resulting from asbestos exposure while working at a job site in Maine for over a thirty year period; the defendants in that case sought a dismissal to Maine. Id. Moreover, the plaintiffs treating physicians, co-worker witnesses, and family members all resided in Maine. Id. Faced with these facts, the supreme court determined that the case had “no relationship to Texas” and that evidentiary and practical problems with a Texas forum were manifest: Id. The alleged practical problems of Texas as a forum for this case, unlike those referred to in In re General Electric, are not manifest. In fact, the record directly contradicts NOVs assertion that a Texas forum would hinder the “fundamental need” of reasonable access to witnesses and evidence.

NOV further argues that “Texas cannot compel the attendance here of unwilling witnesses, and because the cost of attendance here of willing witnesses is prohibitive, this factor also weighs heavily in favor of Singapore as the proper forum.” However, NOV has not identified or provided any evidence regarding the relevant testimony to be provided by any non-party unwilling witnesses, and NOV does not explain how the cost of attendance of willing, party witnesses is “prohibitive.” The record before us reveals that the most relevant witnesses, including Vinson, Kuc-harski, and DNV Houston personnel, reside in Houston or in the United States. See Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC, 281 S.W.3d at 673 (noting that movant failed to identify “unwilling witnesses who are beyond the subpoena power” and also failed to “introduce any evidence attempting to quantify the additional witness expense that a Texas forum would entail”); In re Williams Gas Processing Co., No. 14-07-01026-CV, 2008 WL 257275, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2008, orig. proceeding, mand. denied) (mem.op.) (noting that movant’s proof did not address whether witnesses would testify voluntarily, whether it would be burdensome for any witness to travel to Texas, costs associated with obtaining witnesses’ in Texas, or any difficulty in accessing proof in Texas). The record also reveals that witnesses employed by appellees, at least at GlobalSantaFe, frequently traveled back and forth between Texas and Singapore.

In regard to a view of the premises, it is undisputed that the DDI, the location of Vinson’s injury, sailed in March 2005 from Singapore to the Gulf of Mexico, where it currently remains. Vinson and appellees agree that a view of the DDI is likely unnecessary in this case, and the record before us indicates that the most relevant evidence concerning the cause of the derrick collapse will likely be provided by Kucharski and DNV Houston personnel. However, Vinson asserts that, if a view of the DDI ultimately proves to be helpful, it could be done more easily from Houston than from Singapore.

Finally, in regard to all other alleged practical problems, NOV cites evidence showing that Singapore uses the English language, which would preclude any translation problems. Other than this one argument, NOV again generally asserts that “witnesses and sources of proof are not in Texas” and “most witnesses and proof are in Singapore.” Again, the record before us simply does not support these assertions.

In sum, Kucharski’s deposition testimony and other evidence in the record establish that most of the relevant documents and witnesses in this lawsuit are located in Houston and the United States and that many of the critical witnesses, including Kucharski and DNV personnel, are located in Houston. It is also undisputed that Vinson is a United States citizen residing in Alabama, he was hired by a company with a Houston headquarters to work on the DDI in Singapore, and Vinson worked on a project being supervised by a person located in Houston. The record indicates that Vinson received at least some medical treatment in Houston, and the only evidence in the record regarding his medical treatment in Singapore shows that he was initially seen in a Singapore emergency room. Kucharski also provided undisputed testimony that personnel from the Singapore shipyard have no knowledge of the relevant facts pertaining to the derrick’s collapse, which is the alleged cause of Vinson’s injuries and the basis for Vinson’s claims against appellees. The record also shows, and the parties agree, that there would be no need for the fact finder to view the Singapore shipyard and that the DDI itself sailed to the Gulf of Mexico after the incident. Accordingly, we conclude that the private interest factors weigh heavily in favor of the Texas forum.

In regard to the public interest factors, there is no evidence in the record regarding any administrative difficulties related to court congestion. In regard to local interest, NOV asserts that “Texas has no local interest in a personal injury suit brought by a resident of Alabama for injuries that occurred in Singapore” and that Singapore “has great interest in determining the liability of defendants for allegedly causing injuries in Singapore.” Vinson counters that this dispute involves a suit brought by a United States citizen against three defendants that maintain their corporate headquarters in Houston, along with one Dutch company, for injuries that he sustained on a vessel that is currently located in the Gulf of Mexico. Vinson notes that there is “no allegation that any Singapore citizen or entity was negligent or responsible in any way” for Vinson’s injuries.

The issue of which forum can claim to have a local interest in this case presents an interesting question that is unique from the authorities cited by the parties in their briefing. For example, in In re General Electric Co., the supreme court determined that the private and public interest factors weighed in favor a Maine forum, but that case involved a plaintiff who was a life-long resident of Maine who sustained asbestos-related injuries at a jobsite in Maine, almost all of the evidence and witnesses were located in Maine, and it was undisputed that Maine law applied. 271 S.W.3d at 684. The court explained that Maine “undoubtedly [had] an interest in ensuring that its citizens [were] not exposed to hazardous materials” in a Maine workplace. Id. at 691.

In In re Omega Protein, Inc., this Court considered a suit brought by a Virginia resident injured while working on a vessel that operated exclusively out of Virginia with a crew based in Virginia. 288 S.W.3d at 22-23. Moreover, the evidence presented in that case showed that all persons responsible for the manning, operation, and maintenance of the vessel were based in Virginia and the persons with the most knowledge of safety policies and procedures were based in Virginia. Id. We concluded that the suit had “no meaningful connection to Harris County or Texas” and that the case belonged in Virginia. Id.

In contrast, here, we are presented with claims brought by Vinson, a United States citizen and an Alabama resident, who was hired by GlobalSantaFe, a company with its corporate headquarters in Houston, to travel to Singapore and work on a vessel that is now located in the Gulf of Mexico. Vinson is also seeking recovery against NOV and ABS, corporations who similarly maintain their headquarters in Houston. Additionally, Vinson received medical treatment in Houston, and evidence in the record shows that Global-SantaFe, Vinson’s Houston-based employer, was at least involved in arranging some of his treatment. Under the trial court’s order, Vinson is now faced with the dismissal of his personal injury lawsuit to a foreign forum approximately ten thousand miles away, not simply another forum in the United States, like the alternative forums in In re General Electric and In re Omega Protein. And, although the loss of certain rights does not necessarily render an alternative forum to be inadequate, our supreme court has considered the availability of a jury trial and other rights generally afforded to plaintiffs who are United States citizens in conducting a forum non conveniens analysis. See In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d at 692 (stating, in regard to alternative forum of Maine, that Maine state courts and the potential federal court forum “are subject to the federal Constitution and the rights it guarantees”)-

Finally, in regard to choice of law, the parties primarily focus on whether Vinson is entitled to seek relief under the Jones Act. See 46 U.S.C.A. § 30104. NOV appears to agree that Vinson could have viable claims under the Jones Act, even though he was injured aboard a rig located in a Singapore shipyard, but for the fact that the rig was under construction and NOV, thus, contends that it was not a “vessel in navigation.” NOV asserts that the trial court was required to consider the applicability of the Jones Act in conducting the forum non conveniens analysis because, if the Jones Act applied, the choice of law factor would either favor or mandate an American forum. See Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 583 F.3d 656, 662 (9th Cir.2009) (recognizing that applicability of Jones Act would foreclose dismissal as to American citizen for forum non conveniens based upon specific venue provision in Jones Act).

The trial court concluded that Vinson did not qualify as a Jones Act seaman because he was not aboard a “vessel in navigation.” We agree that, in conducting the forum non conveniens analysis, the trial court was entitled to consider the applicability of the Jones Act. See id. The extremely limited record before us regarding the Jones Act issue indicates that the DDI was still undergoing construction in the Singapore shipyard at the time of Vinson’s injuries and, under recent Fifth Circuit precedent, the DDI may not qualify as a vessel in navigation. See Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 295, 298-99 (5th Cir.2008). Although the applicability of the Jones Act may be an open question subject to additional discovery and argument upon remand, we conclude that the trial court’s finding that the Jones Act did not apply, which it made in conjunction with its forum non conveniens analysis, is supported by the existing record.

However, even though the trial court’s conclusion regarding the Jones Act is supported by the existing record, the trial court’s conclusions that Singapore law would apply and that it would have to “untangle problems in conflict of laws” between Texas and Singapore lacks support in the record. Generally a court must first identify a conflict of law which would necessitate that the trial court decide a choice of law issue. See Ford Motor Co. v. Aguiniga, 9 S.W.3d 252, 260 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). Here, there is no evidence of a conflict of law between the forums on Vinson’s general negligence claims. In fact, in its briefing, NOV argues that Vinson would “experience little difficulty in trying his case under Singapore law” because its legal system is modeled upon the English common law. Additionally, even if the trial court would be required to perform a choice of law analysis, we conclude that the requisite test points toward to the application of Texas law, or least that a choice of law question would present a close call. To the extent that there is a conflict and a choice of law question that needs to be untangled, either forum, Texas or Singapore, would likely have to undertake such an analysis.

NOV argues that it would be unfair to burden Texas citizens with jury duty because Texas has no significant connection to Vinson’s claims. However, Vinson’s employer is headquartered in Texas, Vinson received medical treatment in Texas, Vinson’s employer conducted and supervised the DDI building program from Texas, the investigation of the derrick collapse was conducted by DNV Houston, and many of the critical witnesses and documents are located in Texas. Additionally, although Vinson is an Alabama resident, he is a United States citizen suing for injuries he sustained while working for a company headquartered in Houston. In sum, we conclude that the public interest factors weigh heavily in favor of a Texas forum.

Remaining Considerations

The record does support a finding that because appellees have consented to jurisdiction in Singapore, dismissal of the suit would not result in unreasonable duplication of litigation. See Tex. Civ. PRac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.051(b)(6). However, the record does not demonstrate that ap-pellees would suffer substantial injustice as a result of the trial of Vinson’s claims in Texas. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.051(b)(8). Critical witnesses and documents are located in Texas, even if some witnesses are in Singapore. In fact, as noted above, the evidence in the record shows that NOV and GlobalSan-taFe have already settled any claims between them arising from the derrick collapse in their Houston offices. Thus, we conclude that the remaining considerations favor a Texas forum.

In sum, having concluded that the public and private interest factors weigh strongly in favor of the Texas forum and that the remaining considerations largely favor a Texas forum, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellees’ motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

We sustain Vinson’s second issue.

Conclusion

We reverse the order of the trial court dismissing Vinson’s lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

      . Vinson has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the trial court’s dismissal order is not a final appealable order because it failed to dispose of all parties and claims. NOV has also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that it is "well settled” that a forum non conveniens dismissal is interlocutory. Thus, Vinson and NOV contend that the appeal should be dismissed for different substantive reasons. ABS has filed a response to Vinson's motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court’s judgment is appealable, and Glo-balSantaFe has filed responses to both Vinson's and NOV's motions, arguing that the trial court’s judgment is final and that forum non conveniens dismissals are appealable.

      . 46 U.S.C.A. § 30104.

      . See Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem.Code Ann. § 71.051 (Vernon 2008).

      . NOV also referred to Vinson’s deposition in its motion to dismiss, but NOV concedes that Vinson's deposition does not appear in the appellate record. Because Vinson’s deposition does not appear in the appellate record, we do not consider Vinson’s deposition testimony as evidence on appeal.

      . GlobalSantaFe agrees with Vinson that forum-non-conveniens dismissals are appeal-able.

      . Conversely, it is well settled that a party may not appeal an order denying a motion to dismiss a forum non conveniens and that "[m]andamus is appropriate to remedy an improper denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.” In re Omega Protein, Inc., 288 S.W.3d 17, 19-20 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding).

      . Some courts continue to state that it remains the defendant’s burden to prove that the balance of factors strongly favors the defendant’s choice of forum. See In re Williams Gas Processing Co., No. 14-07-01026-CV, 2008 WL 257275, at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2008, orig. proceeding, mand. denied) (mem.op.). This point of law derives from the seminal case on forum non conveniens. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) (stating that "unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed”). The Texas Supreme Court, in a 2007 plurality opinion, also recognized that ”[t]he doctrine of forum non conveniens has always afforded great deference to the plaintiff's forum choice,” although the doctrine "generally affords substantially less deference to a nonresident’s forum choice.” In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 675 (Tex.2007).

      . Section 71.051 was amended in 2005 to provide that “when determining whether to dismiss an action based on forum non conve-niens, a trial court 'shall' consider” the factors specified in section 71.051(b). In re Gen. Elec. Co., 271 S.W.3d 681, 686 (Tex.2008). Prior to the 2005 amendments, section 71.051 provided that a trial court "may” consider the factors. Id.

      . NOV asserts that "to the extent” any evidence would be needed from the shipyard companies or personnel that supplied the rigging and the barge or from the company that performed the repairs for NOV, the relevant records would be located in Singapore. However, nothing in the record indicates that any such evidence would be needed. In fact, as discussed below, Kucharski stated that no one in Singapore employed by the shipyard had any relevant knowledge of the collapse, and he also noted that shipyard personnel had not even been interviewed during the investigation.

      . Kueharski agreed that Helmersson used local DNV Singapore employees to augment the investigation and that DNV Singapore was retained to perform destructive testing and that the personnel that did the destructive testing analysis were in Singapore.

      . All of these Houston-based witnesses, including Kueharski, are omitted from NOV's chart of potential witnesses that NOV asks us to consider in balancing the private interest factors. Additionally, NOV's chart splits the list of “potential witnesses" into two categories of those of who live in Houston and those who do not. It implies that the overwhelming number of potential witnesses who do not live in Houston weighs heavily against the Houston forum, even though many of the witnesses identified in the chart who do not live in Houston also do not live in Singapore, and presumably would also be beyond the subpoena range of a Singapore court. Moreover, one of the witnesses that NOV identifies as not living in Houston is Vinson himself, who lives in Alabama. A Houston forum is manifestly more convenient than Singapore for Vinson, an Alabama resident.

      . In the trial court, NOV argued that a view of the Singapore shipyard favored Singapore. However, it has dropped this argument on appeal.

      . We recognize that the mere presence of a corporate headquarters is an insufficient basis for maintaining a Texas forum "when all of the other factors favor another forum." See In re Omega Protein, 288 S.W.3d at 23. Here, however, many of the above factors favor a Texas forum. Moreover, the location of Glo-balSantaFe’s corporate headquarters in Houston is more significant based upon Kuchar-ski’s testimony that he supervised the DDI program from Houston while traveling frequently between Houston and Singapore and that a significant amount of relevant evidence and witnesses are located in Houston. Vinson also cites evidence showing that NOV and GlobalSantaFe conducted settlement negotiations and executed settlement agreements in Houston of potential claims arising from the derrick collapse.

      . Lim’s affidavit establishes that Singapore does not have a jury system.

      . The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court's most recent Jones Act decision had “significantly enlarged the types of unconventional and special purpose watercraft that now must be considered vessels that might not have met the test before [Stewart v. Dutra Construction Company, 543 U.S. 481, 125 S.Ct. 1118, 160 L.Ed.2d 932 (2005)].” See Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 295, 300 (5th Cir.2008). The parties, in post-submission briefing, have continued to argue about the potential applicability of the Jones Act to Vinson's claims.

      . Although the trial court stated squarely in its conclusions that Singapore law would apply, it did not provide any detailed choice of law analysis and it did not identify a conflict of law.

      . Texas follows the "most significant relationship" approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law (1971). See Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 318 (Tex.1979). Under this test, a court considers (1) the place where the injury occurred; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties; and (4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. See id.; see also Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws § 145 (1971). The resolution of the choice of law issue turns on the qualitative nature of those contacts as affected by the policy factors enumerated in section 6, which include (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied. Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws § 6 (1971); see also Gutierrez, 583 S.W.2d at 318-319.

      . In our discussion of Vinson’s second issue, we have briefly touched upon the argument in his third issue that the trial court’s order dismissing his claims under the doctrine of forum non conveniens violates his right to a trial by jury "by forcing him to litigate in a country without American constitutional protections.” In light of our holding sustaining Vinson's second issue, we need not directly address his third issue.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SHERRY RADACK, Chief Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Maria C. FIGUEROA, Appellant, v. Edgar DAVIS Jr., Appellee.
    No. 01-07-01109-CV.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).
    April 8, 2010.

      Carrie H. Westbrook, The Spurlock Law Firm, Kimberley M. Spurlock, Spurlock & Associates, P.C., Humble, TX, for Appellant.
    Nathan Anthony Hardee, The Hardee Law Firm, League City, TX, for Appellee.
    Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices ALCALA and HIGLEY.
   OPINION

SHERRY RADACK, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Maria C. Figueroa, appeals from a judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in favor of appellee, Edgar Davis Jr. We determine whether (1) the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support damages and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in its award of prejudgment interest. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2002, Figueroa ran a stop sign and hit the car that Davis was driving and in which Diane Gill was his passenger. In December of that year, Davis and Gill sued Figueroa for personal injury and property damage. In September 2006, a jury found Figueroa negligent. The jury awarded (1) zero dollars to Davis and Gill for all past or future damages on which it was charged (past or future medical care, physical pain and mental anguish, disfigurement, or physical impairment); (2) $500 in property damage to Davis for diminution in value of his car; (3) $75 in lost wages to Gill. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. Davis and Gill moved for new trial. The trial court granted a new trial to Davis, but not to Gill, and rendered an amended judgment, styled “partial final judgment,” as to Gill. Gill is not a party to this appeal.

In September 2007, Davis’s negligence claim against Figueroa went to trial. Figueroa was again found negligent. Figueroa does not contest this liability finding on appeal. The trial court submitted damages by element, both by type of injury and by whether the injury occurred in past or in future. The jury was instructed:

Consider the elements of damages listed below and none other. Consider each element separately. Do not include damages for one element in any other element....
Do not include any amount for any condition not resulting from the occurrence in question. Do not include any amount for any condition existing before the occurrence in question, except to the extent, if any, that such other condition was aggravated by any injuries that resulted from the occurrence in question.

The jury awarded Davis the following damages:

• $10,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish,
• $450 for future physical pain and mental anguish,
• $10,000 for past disfigurement,
• $450 for future disfigurement,
• $10,000 for past physical impairment,
• $450 for future physical impairment,
• $5,267.78 for past medical care, and
• $5,865 for future medical care.

“Physical pain,” “mental anguish,” “disfigurement,” and “physical impairment” were not defined in the charge, and no party objected to the lack of such definitions.

On September 25, 2007, the trial court signed a judgment on the verdict, awarding, among other things, $42,482.78 in total damages and $14,091.30 in prejudgment interest.

Figueroa timely moved to modify the judgment, with alternative requests for new trial or for remittitur. On December 6, 2007, the trial court signed an order denying Figueroa’s motion, but nonetheless signed an amended judgment. The amended judgment retained the previous damage award, but reduced prejudgment interest to $14,005.83. Figueroa appeals.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Under issue two, Figueroa raises two complaints. First, she argues that there is legally and factually insufficient evidence to show past or future physical pain or mental anguish or future disfigurement. Second, Figueroa contends that there is legally and factually insufficient evidence to support the award of damages for future medical care. In partial support of both of these arguments, Figueroa also contends that the lack of expert medical testimony connecting Davis’s dental injuries with the accident precludes any damages (including past and future medical expenses) based on that injury.

A. Standards of Review

When, as here, an appellant attacks the legal sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue for which it did not have the burden of proof, it must demonstrate that there is no evidence to support the adverse finding. Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55, 58 (Tex.1983). Such a no-evidence challenge will be sustained when “ ‘(a) there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, (b) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (c) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla, or (d) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact.’ ” King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex.2003) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex.1997)).

In our legal-sufficiency review, “we must view the evidence in a light that tends to support the finding of disputed fact and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.2003). Nonetheless, “[t]he final test for legal sufficiency must always be whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review.... [Ljegal-sufficien-cy review in the proper light must credit favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, and disregard contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex.2005).

If more than a scintilla of evidence supports the jury’s finding, “the jury’s verdict ... must be upheld.” Miller, 102 S.W.3d at 709. “[M]ore than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidence ‘rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions.’ ” Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex.2004) (quoting Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 711). Conversely, evidence that is “ ‘so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise’ ” is no more than a scintilla and, thus, no evidence. Id. (quoting Kindred v. Con/Chem., Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex.1983)).

To the extent that Figueroa preserved certain legal-sufficiency challenges only by motion for new trial, her relief on them is limited to remand, not rendition. See Brown v. Traylor, 210 S.W.3d 648, 659 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that legal-sufficiency challenge raised in motion for new trial allowed only for remand).

In reviewing a factual-sufficiency challenge to a finding on an issue on which the appellant did not have the burden of proof, we consider and weigh all of the evidence and set aside the judgment only if the evidence that supports the challenged finding is so weak as to make the judgment clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986). We must examine both the evidence supporting and that contrary to the judgment. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex.2001).

Under either type of sufficiency challenge, the jury is the sole judge of witnesses' credibility, and it may choose to believe one witness over another; a reviewing court may not impose its own opinion to the contrary. City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 819. Because it is the jury’s province to resolve conflicting evidence, we must assume that jurors resolved all conflicts in accordance with their verdict. Id. at 819-20.

B. Expert Testimony on Causation

Under part of her first issue, Figueroa contends that the evidence is legally or factually insufficient to prove any damages related to Davis’s dental injury because Davis failed to present any expert testimony of causation. Specifically, Figueroa contends that (1) the only testimony of causation came from Davis, who was not an expert; (2) lay testimony did not suffice to prove causation in this case; and, in any event, (3) Davis’s testimony on causation was “entirely subjective,” and his initial medical records “omit entirely any mention of’ this injury. Because this third argument does not concern the necessity for expert causation testimony, we construe it as an alternative sufficiency challenge: that if no expert testimony was required, then Davis’s lay testimony that was offered to show causation was legally or factually insufficient for the stated reasons. Figueroa raised these sufficiency challenges for the first time in her motion for new trial.

1. The Law

“The general rule has long been that expert testimony is necessary to establish causation as to medical conditions outside the common knowledge and experience of jurors.” Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662, 665 (Tex.2007). However, “in limited circumstances, the existence and nature of certain basic conditions, proof of a logical sequence of events, and temporal proximity between an occurrence and the conditions can be sufficient to support a jury finding of causation without expert evidence.” Id. at 667. That is, “the causal connection between some events and conditions of a basic nature (and treatment for such conditions) are within a layperson’s general experience and common sense.” Id. at 668. “This conclusion accords with human experience, [the Texas Supreme Court’s] prior cases, and the law in other states where courts have held that causation as to certain types of pain, bone fractures, and similar basic conditions following an automobile collision can be within the common experience of lay jurors.” Id. “Thus, non-expert evidence alone is sufficient to support a finding of causation in limited circumstances where both the occurrence and conditions complained of are such that the general experience and common sense of laypersons are sufficient to evaluate the conditions and whether they

were probably caused by the occurrence.” Id. When the exception applies, then “ [generally, lay testimony establishing a sequence of events which provides a strong, logically traceable connection between the event and the condition is sufficient proof of causation.” Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 738 (Tex.1984).

2. Discussion

The trial court admitted Davis’s medical records accompanied by a Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 18.001 affidavit, which was not controverted. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 18.001(b) (Vernon 2008). This proved only the expenses’ reasonableness and necessity, not causation. See id. (“Unless a controverting affidavit is filed as provided by this section, an affidavit that the amount a person charged for a service was reasonable at the time and place that the service was provided and that the service was necessary is sufficient evidence to support a finding of fact by judge or jury that the amount charged was reasonable or that the service was necessary.”); S.W. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Valadez, No. 2-07-129-CV, 2008 WL 425746, at *3 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Feb. 14, 2008, no pet.) (memo.op.) (providing that compliance with section 18.001 does not establish causation). The sole evidence of causation came from Davis.

The accident occurred on July 27, 2002, a Saturday. Davis testified that when the vehicles impacted, his “body went forward” and his “teeth and neck hit the steering wheel.” His mouth was not then bleeding, and his teeth were not knocked out right then from the impact, but they were “cracked.” Davis testified that the officer who came to the scene “asked [him] about — what was wrong with [his] mouth.” Davis explained that the officer’s question was the result of his having told her that he “couldn’t talk, because it was hurting.”

Over the next few days after the wreck, Davis’s teeth “would be in pieces in [his] mouth” when he woke up in the morning, and when he tried brushing his teeth, they “would just fall out” and would “break off.” Eventually, his front teeth fell out entirely, leaving only “pieces up in the roof of [his] mouth.” Davis answered “No, sir” to the question: “Are you aware of any prior record in this case that says that you hit your mouth on anything other than a steering wheel?” A dental patient information form from one of Davis’s treating clinics indicated that Davis had not before been told that he had gum or periodontal disease, although the same form indicated that Davis had not had a dental examination, x-rays, or cleaning in the past six months.

This testimony establishes “a sequence of events which provides a strong, logically traceable connection between the event and the condition is sufficient proof of causation.” Morgan, 675 S.W.2d at 733. It is more than mere temporal proximity: Davis’s teeth hit a hard object during the impact, they were immediately cracked, and within days, they were crumbling and falling out of his mouth. This evidence is akin to the “pain, bone fractures, and similar basic conditions following an automobile collision” that the Guevara court indicated would fall within the common experience of lay persons so that causation could stand on lay testimony. See Guevara, 247 S.W.3d at 665; see also Valadez, No. 2-07-129-CV, 2008 WL 425746, at *3 (holding that plaintiffs lay testimony — that he experienced severe pain to shoulder immediately upon falling into hole, combined with evidence that plaintiff had not had this pain before accident— sufficed to show causation). The trial court did not err in so determining.

Figueroa alternatively argues that, if lay testimony could prove causation, Davis’s testimony fell short because it was “entirely subjective” and was not reflected in the medical records of the initial clinic that Davis visited. Davis first sought medical attention at Accident and Injury (“A & I”) within less than a week after the accident. No one at A & I checked his teeth. What appears to be initial questionnaires and personal histories completed at A & I indicated “none” for “dental problems” and impact to head or face, and Davis testified at trial that he did not remember telling his care providers at A & I about his dental injury. However, Davis also testified that he must have told the A & I staff about his dental problems, since he was sent to his second treating clinic, Americare, for the very reason that Americare “had a dental facility” and A & I did not. Supporting Davis’s testimony was a “treatment plan” form from A & I, dated August 1, 2002, indicating, “Refer for dental consult.” Additionally, the records at Americare — the earliest of which was dated August 8, 2002— showed that Davis had injured his teeth. Davis received dental care at Americare, which in July 2008 drew up an estimate for permanent teeth to replace Davis’s lost ones.

The fact that Davis’s dental injury was not recorded until his second set of medical records, in contrast to his testimony that his injury was immediate upon impact, went to the weight of his testimony — a matter for the jury to resolve. See City of Dallas v. Allen, No. 05-01-00158-CV, 2002 WL 857165, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas Mar. 7, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (holding that evidence of causation was legally sufficient when car-accident plaintiff testified that he reported elbow injury at time of medical treatment, even though initial medical records did not reveal that he did so). The evidence is not legally or factually insufficient because of it.

C. Norn-Economic Damages

Figueroa next challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the jury’s award of all non-economic damages, past and future.

“Non-economic damages include compensation for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and disfigurement.” Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 763 (Tex.2003). “The process of awarding damages for amorphous, discretionary injuries such as mental anguish or pain and suffering is inherently difficult because the alleged injury is a subjective, unliquidated, nonpecuniary loss.” HCRA of Tex., Inc. v. Johnston, 178 S.W.3d 861, 871 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). “Once the existence of some pain, mental anguish and disfigurement has been established, there is no objective way to measure the adequacy of the amount awarded as compensation, which is generally left to the discretion of the fact finder.” Pentes Design, Inc. v. Perez, 840 S.W.2d 75, 80 (TexApp.-Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). “The amounts of damages awarded for pain and suffering and disfigurement are necessarily speculative and each case must be judged on its own facts.” Id. at 80-81.

1. Past and Future Physical Pain and Mental Anguish

The jury awarded $10,000 and $450, respectively, for physical pain and mental anguish sustained in the past and future.

Physical pain and suffering may be established by circumstantial evidence. Johnston, 178 S.W.3d at 871. “The duration of the pain ... is an important consideration.” Id. The fact finder “is given a great deal of discretion in awarding an amount of damages it deems appropriate for pain and suffering.” Id.

Davis testified that upon impact, he was thrown forward, and his neck and teeth hit the steering wheel. Within a few days, his attorney sent him to A & I for treatment. Daws claimed that his neck, lower back, and teeth were hurt in the accident. His medical records from both A & I and Americare indicated that within a few days of the accident, he was having headaches and radiating neck and back pain (which Americare’s records indicated was “severe”) and that he was being treated for these things multiple times from August through October 2002 at Americare. Although he had injured his neck and back in an on-the-job accident about five years before trial, Davis was no longer receiving “any kind of treatment” for his neck and back when the instant accident occurred, any residual pain that he had from that prior had resolved after a few months, and he reported to his Americare doctor that “he was in a good state of health and did not suffer from” his symptoms prior to the instant car accident. Although Davis’s back at the time of the second trial was “better,” he believed that “it’s not going to ever be right.”

In contrast, Davis admitted that he was not blaming all of his current back problems on the accident with Figueroa. He also admitted that his prior back injury had not been fully resolved before the instant accident, although it had gotten “better.” Davis voluntarily ceased physical therapy at Americare in October 2002 because he “felt that [he] didn’t need [any] more therapy.” Finally, he testified that he did not plan to return for physical therapy in the future unless he had to do so.

Davis smashed his teeth into the steering wheel with such force that they cracked immediately and crumbled shortly thereafter. For just under five years, Davis had small fragments of his front teeth protruding from his gum line. Davis tried to eat every day, but could not always do so. He could not drink anything cold, describing the pain that he felt when he did so as a “chill.” Neither could Davis eat anything hard, such as apples. He had to eat certain foods from the side of his mouth. Anbesol had not helped alleviate his tooth pain, although aspirin did.

Americare’s 2003 estimate for replacing Davis’s teeth with permanent fixtures was $5,865, which Davis could not afford. Davis testified that “because [he] waited so long to hear from these people [sic] about my teeth,” and because he “was about to starve to death,” he decided to obtain a “gold card,” which would allow him to be treated in the Harris County Hospital District (“HCHD”). It took two applications, but Davis finally obtained a gold card shortly before trial. The HCHD’s treatment plan involved pulling Davis’s teeth and replacing them with a removable bridge. About two weeks before the second trial, Davis had HCHD pull four of his teeth, after which he felt “much better.”

Sufficient evidence of either past physical pain or past mental anguish could support the award because the charge did not ask for separate damages figures for each type of injury. The above evidence is some evidence of past physical pain arising from Davis’s teeth, back, and neck injuries; it is also not such weak evidence of past physical pain as to render the $10,000 award manifestly unjust. See Perez, 840 S.W.2d at 80-81 (holding that evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support $500,000 award for mental anguish, physical pain, and disfigurement for child whose two permanent front teeth were lost while playing in area designed by defendant). Moreover, the jury could rationally have determined that undergoing a procedure to install permanent teeth — which would entail bone replacement grafts, removal of exposed roots, scaling and root planing, and fusion of porcelain teeth — would result in some physical pain in the future. Such an inference would support the very modest sum that the jury awarded as damages for future pain and mental anguish. That same inference is also not so weak as to render the future-damages award manifestly unjust.

2. Past and Future Disfigurement

The jury awarded $10,000 and $450, respectively, for disfigurement in the past and future.

“Disfigurement has been defined as that which impairs the appearance of a person, or that which renders unsightly, misshapen or imperfect, or deforms in some manner.” Doctor v. Pardue, 186 S.W.3d 4, 18 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). “The matter of future disfigurement is necessarily speculative and there is no mathematical yard stick by which one can measure damages for it.” Tri-State Motor Transit Co. v. Nicar, 765 S.W.2d 486, 494 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ). “Each case must be judged on its own facts and considerable discretion must be vested in the jury.” Id.

The above evidence showing that Davis’s front teeth crumbled out of his mouth, leaving only small pieces at his gumline, that they were not pulled until almost five years later, and that they were still missing at trial is some evidence that supports the jury’s finding of past-disfigurement damages. See Perez, 840 S.W.2d at 80-81 (holding that evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support $500,000 award for mental anguish, physical pain, and disfigurement for child whose two permanent front teeth were lost in injury occurring in play area designed by defendant). Moreover, the jury could rationally have inferred that at least some time would pass before Davis could undergo the procedure to install permanent teeth, which inference would support the small sum that it awarded as damages for future disfigurement. That rational inference is not so weak as to render the future-damages award manifestly unjust, either.

3. Past and Future Physical Impairment

The jury awarded $10,000 and $450, respectively, for physical impairment sustained in the past and future.

“Physical impairment, sometimes called loss of enjoyment of life, encompasses the loss of the injured party’s former lifestyle.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. Burry, 203 S.W.3d 514, 554 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); see Doctor, 186 S.W.3d at 18 (quoting Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., 116 S.W.3d at 772). “[L]oss of enjoyment of life fits best among the factors a factfinder may consider in assessing damages for physical impairment. Indeed, if other elements such as pain, suffering, mental anguish, and disfigurement are submitted, there is little left for which to compensate under the category of physical impairment other than loss of enjoyment of life.” Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., 116 S.W.3d at 772. A plaintiff generally must show that his physical-impairment damages are substantial and extend beyond any pain, suffering, mental anguish, lost wages or diminished earning capacity. Burry, 203 S.W.3d at 555; see Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., 116 S.W.3d at 772 (indicating that it would be “appropriate to advise the jury [by instruction] that it may consider as a factor loss of enjoyment of life. But the jury should be instructed that the effect of any physical impairment must be substantial and extend beyond any pain, suffering, mental anguish, lost wages or diminished earning capacity and that a claimant should not be compensated more than once for the same elements of loss or injury.”). In this case, physical impairment was undefined, and the relevant instruction was that the jury “[c]on-sider the elements of damages listed below and none other. Consider each element separately. Do not include damages for one element in any other element.”

Figueroa contends on appeal that Davis did not complain of any sport, hobby, or other recreational activity that he could not do as a result of his injuries. She also argues that the evidence does not rise to the level of impairment because Davis “could eat some food, he just had to chew on the side of his mouth or cut things in half’ and “could drink normal liquids, he just had a ‘chill’ when he drank cold water.” This challenge was preserved with respect to Figueroa’s complaints concerning future physical impairment, which she raised by motions for directed verdict and new trial and objections to the charge elements on' future damages. However, this appellate challenge does not comport with her sufficiency challenge made below to the past physical impairment award, which was preserved in her motion for new trial: “[T]he only evidence concerning past physical ‘impairment’ was that [Davis] had difficulty eating his favorite foods due to his dental problems. Yet again, because there was no [expert] evidence linking such problems to the motor vehicle collision, the jury’s award of impairment damages was improper.”

In any event, we hold that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the award of past physical-impairment damages. Davis testified that he tried to eat every day, but could not always do so. Neither could Davis eat anything hard, such as apples, or anything cold. He could not eat some of the foods that he loved, such as hot dogs and hamburgers. He had to eat certain foods from the side of his mouth or had to eat soft foods. This condition lasted for years before trial.

The jury was instructed to award damages separately for each injury, without awarding damages attributable to one injury for another injury; we presume that the jury followed this instruction because nothing in the record indicates that it did not. See Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., 116 S.W.3d at 771. A jury rationally could have concluded that an inability to eat whole categories of foods, or to eat any food at all some days, over a period of several years was a loss of enjoyment of life (and thus a past physical impairment) separate and apart from the physical pain or disfigurement arising from the same injury. Additionally, the jury could rationally have inferred that at least some time would pass before Davis could undergo the procedure to install permanent teeth, which inference would support the small sum that it awarded as damages for future physical impairment. That rational inference is not so weak as to render the future-damages award manifestly unjust.

D. Future Medical Care

Figueroa further contends that the evidence is legally or factually insufficient to support the award for future medical care because Davis allegedly testified that he was not having his dental work done at the only facility for which a treatment estimate was proved.

Americare’s estimated cost for replacing Davis’s teeth with permanent fixtures was $5,865. This is the exact amount that the jury awarded for future medical care. Davis could not afford the cost of replacing his teeth under Americare’s plan, however. The HCHD’s treatment plan, in contrast, involved pulling the teeth and replacing them with a removable bridge. About two weeks before the second trial, Davis had HCHD pull four of his teeth. When he was asked if he would be having the remainder of his dental treatment at HCHD, Davis responded, “Yes, sir. I was. I ivould prefer to have my permanent teeth.” (Emphasis added.)

Davis’s testimony was not that he would absolutely receive dental treatment at HCHD. Rather, he testified that he would instead prefer to have permanent teeth installed. HCHD would not install permanent teeth; only Americare would. The jury awarded Davis the amount of Ameri-care’s estimate for permanent teeth. Accordingly, there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding of future medical care.

E. Conclusion

We hold that there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support all damages awarded. We thus overrule issue two in its entirety.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

In issue one, Figueroa contends that the trial court erred in calculating prejudgment interest. Primarily, she contends that the trial court should have tolled the accrual of prejudgment interest for the entire period between her presuit settlement offers (the earlier of which was on September 3, 2004) and the vacating of the first judgment (January 12, 2007) because the amount of the first judgment was less than her settlement offer. Alternatively, if the first judgment cannot be considered, she contends that the trial court erred in tolling prejudgment interest on the amount of her settlement offer based on only the 20 days before her earlier settlement offer was rejected by Davis.

1. The Law

In a personal-injury case, “[ejxcept as provided by Section 304.105 ..., prejudgment interest accrues on the amount of a judgment during the period beginning on the earlier of the 180th day after the date the defendant receives written notice of a claim or the date the suit is filed and ending on the day preceding the date judgment is rendered.” Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 304.104 (Vernon 2006). Section 304.105 then provides:

(a) If judgment for a claimant is equal to or less than the amount of a settlement offer of the defendant, prejudgment interest does not accrue on the amount of the judgment during the period that the offer may be accepted.
(b) If judgment for a claimant is more than the amount of a settlement offer of the defendant, prejudgment interest does not accrue on the amount of the settlement offer during the period that the offer may be accepted.

Id. § 304.105 (Vernon 2006).

“[B]oth the party seeking prejudgment interest and the party seeking to toll it must provide the court with evidence competent ... to establish the proper amount of the award.” Quality Beverage, Inc. v. Medina, 858 S.W.2d 8, 11 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ). “This evidence may be presented at any time during the court’s plenary power.” Id.

“The abuse of discretion standard applies to the trial court’s factual findings as they relate to prejudgment interest; but the de novo standard applies to the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.” Toshiba Mach. Co., Am. v. SPM Flow Control, Inc., 180 S.W.3d 761, 785 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. granted, judg. vacated w.r.m.).

2. Procedural History

Davis filed suit on December 2, 2002. The first trial resulted in a verdict for Davis of $500, which was memorialized in a final judgment dated November 10, 2006. The court granted a new trial on January 12, 2007. Upon a second trial, the jury awarded Davis $42,482.78. The trial court rendered judgment accordingly, also awarding $14,091.30 in prejudgment interest.

By motion to modify the judgment, Figueroa contended that the trial court had erred in calculating prejudgment interest. She alleged that she had made a written settlement offer for $3,000 on September 3, 2004. Necessarily invoking section 304.105(a), Figueroa contended that prejudgment interest should not have accrued on the amount of the final judgment ($42,-482.78) from September 3, 2004 (the date of her $3,000 settlement offer) until January 12, 2007 (the date that new trial was granted) because the first judgment had been less than the $3,000 offer. Her motion to modify did not mention whether that offer had been rejected. Portions of the record indicate that Figueroa filed a supplement to the motion to modify, but the appellate record does not contain that supplement.

At the hearing on Figueroa’s motion to modify, Davis’s counsel admitted that Figueroa had made a $3,000 settlement offer on September 3, 2004, but contended that that offer had been rejected on September 23, 2004 by counteroffer. In support, Davis attached to his verified response to the motion to modify a copy of his September 23, 2004 letter making a “formal settlement demand” upon Figueroa for her policy limits. Figueroa acknowledged the rejection, but responded that she had extended a $3,500 settlement offer after that September 23 rejection; however, she produced no evidence of the $3,500 offer, and Davis did not judicially admit that the $3,500 settlement offer had been made. The parties disputed whether the award amount of first judgment, which had been vacated, could be considered for purposes of calculating prejudgment interest, ie., they disputed whether section 304.105(a) applied.

The trial court’s subsequent written order denied the motion to modify, but issued an amended judgment on December 6, 2007, which reduced prejudgment interest to $14,005.83, apparently attempting to take into account the 20-day period before the $3,000 offer was rejected in the calculation of prejudgment interest.

3. Discussion

We reject Figueroa’s primary argument that section 304.105(a) applies because the first judgment was less than her settlement offer. Section 304.105(a) applies when “judgment for a claimant is equal to or less than” the settlement offer. Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 304.104(a). The only settlement offer that was proved was $3,000. The final judgment rendered in December 2007 was not equal to or less than $3,000. Figueroa’s reliance on the lesser amount awarded in the November 10, 2006 judgment is misplaced because that judgment was vacated when a new trial was granted. “When a motion for new trial is granted, ‘the case shall be reinstated upon the docket of the trial court and stand for trial the same as though no trial had been had/ ” Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex.2005) (quoting Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Cook, 122 Tex. 446, 60 5.W.2d 764, 768 (1933)). “Thus, when the trial court grants a motion for new trial, the court essentially wipes the slate clean and starts over.” Id. The November 10, 2006 judgment became a nullity the moment that the trial court granted a new trial, and it thus cannot function to toll the accrual of prejudgment interest under section 304.105(a).

Figueroa alternatively argues:

Appellant should get a prejudgment interest credit of $3,000 off the total judgment from the time when the written offer was tendered until the date the 2007 judgment was signed. Appellant does not agree that she should only get credit for twenty days because Appellant never withdrew the $3,000 offer and, in fact, tendered a $3,500 offer AFTER Appellee rejected the first offer, indicating to Appellee that the offer could still be accepted.
Furthermore, the trial court’s interpretation of the statutes in regard to the twenty days Appellee took to reject the offer flies in the face of section 304.105’s plain language, which provides that prejudgment interest does not accrue on the amount of the judgment “during the period that the offer may be accepted.” ... According to the face of the statute, a claimant’s rejection of an offer is not necessarily dispositive of whether the offer “may be accepted” — the question is whether the offer could have been accepted. Appellant never withdrew the offer to settle the case and, in fact, extended a second offer of $3,500 after Appellee rejected the first offer....

(Emphasis added.) This argument necessarily invokes section 304.105(b), which applies when the judgment exceeds the settlement offer and provides that “prejudgment interest does not accrue on the amount of the settlement offer during the period that the offer may be accepted.” Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 304.105(b) (emphasis added).

Figueroa produced no evidence of the $3,500 offer, and it cannot be considered for any purpose relating to prejudgment interest. See Medina, 858 S.W.2d at 11 (“[B]oth the party seeking prejudgment interest and the party seeking to toll it must provide the court with evidence competent ... to establish the proper amount of the award.”). That leaves only the $3,000 offer, which was rejected 20 days after it was made. Figueroa’s specific issue is thus whether, as a matter of law under section 304.105(b), the rejection of the $3,000 settlement offer caused the “period that the offer may be accepted” to expire. That question has already been answered in the affirmative. See Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 114 S.W.3d 15, 41 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003) (“[T]he period that the offer may be accepted,” within the meaning of section 304.105, expires when the plaintiff rejects the offer), rev’d on other grounds, 167 S.W.3d 324 (Tex.2005); Harris v. Mickel, 15 F.3d 428, 429 (5th Cir.1994). Under contract principles, once an offer is rejected, it is terminated, and the rejecting party cannot thereafter accept it; accordingly, the “period that the offer may be accepted” under section 304.105 terminates when the offer is rejected. See Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc., 114 S.W.3d at 41; Harris, 15 F.3d at 429.

We hold that the trial court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest for the reasons that Figueroa argues. We overrule issue one in its entirety.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

      . Moreover, Figueroa prays only for a remand, not for a rendition.

      . Figueroa does not challenge the excessiveness of the damages awarded. See Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 773-74 (Tex.2003) (providing that in reviewing excessiveness challenge, court considers "all the evidence that bears on the challenged category of damages, even if the evidence also relates to another category of damages” and that "if more than one award in overlapping categories is challenged as excessive,” court must "consider all the evidence that relates to the total amount awarded in all overlapping categories to determine if the total amount awarded was excessive.”).

      . In one sentence of her appellate brief, Figueroa states, "There was also no expert testimony provided to inform the jury as to the alleged level of pain directly attributable to the collision as opposed to the alleged level of pain directly attributable to [Davis's] preexisting back injury.” She does not brief this argument separately. More importantly, Figueroa does not advise where she preserved such a sufficiency challenge based on lack of expert testimony, and we have not found it in her motion for new trial, her motion for directed verdict, or in her objections at the charge conference. In fact, the only sufficiency challenge based on lack of expert testimony that we have located is that contained in her motion for new trial, which complained solely that expert testimony was required to prove Davis’s dental injuries. We thus do not address this argument. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1).

      . In his appellee’s brief, Davis asks us to modify the prejudgment interest award. However, he did not file a notice of appeal, and we may thus not grant the relief that he requests. See Tex.R.App. P. 25.1(c).

      . In his appellee's brief, Davis contends that Figueroa produced no evidence of the $3,000 offer. However, Davis's counsel's courtroom admission replaced the need to enter evidence of this fact. See Bowen v. Robinson, 227 S.W.3d 86, 92 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (“A judicial admission is a formal waiver of proof that dispenses with the production of evidence on an issue.”).

      . Figueroa contends that that $3,000 offer remained open, as a matter of law, even after Davis's counteroffer, but it did not. See Blackstone v. Thalman, 949 S.W.2d 470, 473 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ) ("A counteroffer constitutes a rejection, not an acceptance, of the original offer.”).