In Romero v. KPH Consolidation, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2005), the plaintiff brought a negligence claim against a hospital based on two different theories of negligence: (1) negligently delaying a blood transfusion for the plaintiff while he was in surgery and (2) malicious credentialing of the surgeon. Id. at 214. The jury was instructed that if it found liability under either theory, it should apportion responsibility for the plaintiff's injury, which it did: 40% to the hospital; 40% to the surgeon; and 20% to the anesthesiologist. Id. at 219. On appeal, the supreme court determined that there was no evidence to support judgment against the hospital for malicious credentialing. Id. at 224. The court then considered whether the judgment for plaintiff could rest on the jury's finding that the hospital negligently delayed a blood transfusion, or whether reversal and remand was required because of error in the jury question regarding the apportionment of responsibility. Id. at 225. The court explained that in answer to Question 1, the jury found that the plaintiff's injury was caused by the negligence of the hospital, surgeon, and anesthesiologist. Id. In answer to Question 2, the jury found that the hospital's malicious credentialing of the surgeon also caused the plaintiff' s injury. Id. "Thus, the jury was instructed to apportion responsibility among the hospital, the surgeon, and the anesthesiologist, and in doing so, to consider the hospital's malicious credentialing of the surgeon." Id. In considering whether the hospital was harmed by the erroneous submission of Question 2, the supreme court in Romero emphasized that it had previously held in Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex. 2000), that "submitting invalid theories of liability in a single broad-form jury question is harmful error when it cannot be determined whether the jury based its verdict on one or more of the invalid theories." Romero, 166 S.W.3d at 226. The Romero court explained that "while in other instances a jury may simply ignore a factor in the charge that lacks evidentiary support, there are other instances -- and this case is one -- where the jury is as misled by the inclusion of a claim without evidentiary support as by a legally erroneous instruction." Id. Thus, the court held that "in all circumstances in which a trial court's error in instructing a jury to consider erroneous matters, whether an invalid liability theory or an unsupported element of damage, prevents the appellant from demonstrating the consequences of the error on appeal, the same analysis must be applied." Id. at 227.