In Barrigan v. MHMR Servs. for the Concho Valley, No. 03-05-00742-CV, 2007 WL 27732, at 3 (Tex. App.--Austin Jan. 4, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.), the court explained that the trial court failed to include an instruction assigning the burden of proof to MHMR (the party appealing from the Divisions's order), but the court concluded the error was harmless. Id. (citing Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(1)). The trial court had instructed the jury at the beginning of trial that MHMR had the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on the impairment rating. Id. Throughout the trial, Barrigan's counsel repeatedly emphasized to the jury that MHMR had the burden to prove Barrigan's impairment rating by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.