we will sustain it. Mantime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Tex.1998); Gonzalez, 940 S.W.2d at 796-97. In conducting our review, we are mindful that the jury was not convinced by a preponderance of the evidence, and we may not reverse the judgment merely because we conclude the evidence preponderates toward an affirmative answer. Cropper v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 754 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Tex.1988); McMillon v. Texas Dept. of Ins., 963 S.W.2d 935, 938-39 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). When a party complains of the jury’s failure to find a fact, we may reverse only when the great weight of the evidence supports an affirmative answer. Winkle v. Tullos, 917 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, writ denied), citing Herbert v. Herbert, 754 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex.1988) (<HOLDING>). ELEMENTS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE In a medical
holding that although the court has the authority to review facts not before the plan administrator the court should use that authority sparingly holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals holding that the court of appeals has authority to review jurys failure to find in same manner as it reviews jury findings