In Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Baker, 355 S.W.3d 375, 386 (Tex. App.--Houston 1st Dist. 2011, no pet.) the Court held that an incorrect producing cause definition was harmful. 355 S.W.3d at 386-87. The evidence showed that Baker injured his knee in July 2000 when stepping off a ladder, that the carrier accepted the claim, but that the carrier later disputed whether Baker's original knee injury included a medial meniscus tear that was first identified five years later. Id. at 377. Explaining that the incorrect definition required reversal for a new trial, the court held: "As in Crump, the 'but-for' or 'substantial factor' aspect of causation was squarely at issue, and the charge error related to the sole issue in the case, that of causation. Also as in Crump, the evidence in this case included conflicting expert testimony regarding whether the accident caused the meniscus tear, which was the sole question before the jury." Id. at 386 .