In the trial court, Jones had the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish that his injury occurred in the course and scope of his employment. See Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund v. Martinez, 30 S.W.3d 490, 493 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. denied). When, as here, the party without the burden of proof suffers an unfavorable finding in the trial court, a legal sufficiency challenge on appeal is one of "`no evidence to support the finding.'"

Krueger v. Atascosa County, 155 S.W.3d 614, 619 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Berryhill, No. 14-03-00629-CV, 2004 WL 744417, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (memo. op.); Hefley v. Sentry Ins. Co., 131 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, pet. denied); Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund v. Martinez, 30 S.W.3d 490, 492 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. denied); St. Paul Ins. Co. v. Mefford, 994 S.W.2d 715, 719-20 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, pet. denied). The plaintiff in Downs appealed the Commission's determination on the issue of the carrier's noncompliance with the seven-day pay-or-dispute notice.

TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.303 (Vernon 1996). TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.301 (Vernon 1996); Sec. Nat'l Ins. v. Farmer, 89 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied); Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund v. Martinez, 30 S.W.3d 490, 492-93 (Tex.App. 2000, pet. denied). A review is limited to those issues decided by the appeals panel.

Again, appellant fails to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 38.1(h). Appellant had the burden of proof because she was the party seeking judicial review. TEX. LABOR CODE ANN. § 410.303 (Vernon 1996); Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Martinez, 30 S.W.3d 490, 493 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet'n den'd). In reviewing appellant's legal sufficiency challenge, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee, indulging every reasonable inference in appellee's favor.