Court Opinion

ID: 9760244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:43:57.786246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.658048
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On rehearing, American Home Assurance Company, the appellant, brings three assignments of error. In the first assignment, the appellant maintains that this court erred in holding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s answers to special issues 1, la and lb (i.e., the total and permanent incapacity findings) because we improperly considered hearsay testimony to the effect that Coronado was suffering from a ruptured disc. This assignment of error makes reference to that portion of the opinion where we stated, “Dr. Rimmer thought Coronado had a ruptured disc and discussed the possibility of surgery, although no recommendation was made on that point.” This statement and the other sentences in the same paragraph, paraphrase the following testimony of Coronado:
Q (By Ms. Atkinson) Mr. Coronado, what did you find out about your back after your initial visit with Dr. Rimmer?
A I find out that what he thought it was, was a ruptured disc. [Emphasis added.]
Q Okay. And, I believe you testified previously that you discussed surgery at that time?
A We did.
. Q Okay, were you opposed to having surgery on your back?
A Well, we never did got down to it, but I was willing to have it.
Q Okay, did Dr. Rimmer give you a release to go back to work, or what instructions did Dr. Rimmer give you with regard to what you needed to do to take care of yourself?
A Well, the first time I went to see Dr. Charles Rimmer, he thought I — a possibility of a ruptured disc.
We talked, we sat down and talked about surgery. I said, “Well, I — ” I didn’t agree and I didn’t disagree, we just, well, if that’s what it takes, I guess that’s what we have to be done.
But he says, “I’m going to give you— we got to give it a week and see how it will be.” He said, he give me a week, and say, “Come back in a week.”
Q Did he send you back to work?
A No, he said, “You stay home,” he said, “don’t do nothing, don’t lift nothing, don’t drive, just sit around the house, lay in bed and do some exercise.” You know, I mean, what you call it, give a—
Q He gave you some exercises to do for therapy?
A Yeah.
Q Okay, did you follow those instructions?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q When did he tell you to come back?
A In a week.
Q Did you go back in a week?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q What happened when you went back?
*825A He told me the same thing, “Come back in a week.”
Q Did he mention surgery?
A No, we didn’t never did mention surgery after that anymore.
Q Okay, you went — did he still tell you to go back home and have bed rest, don’t drive, don’t lift, don’t bend.
A Every week that I went back, the same thing. He told me that same thing for about five weeks straight along, until he finally told me that I could go to work.
Q Okay, you went to Dr. Rimmer every week for five weeks, and then he finally released you to go back to work, is that correct?
A Well, I don’t know if he released me, or call that released or not, but he told me I could go back to work.
Q Okay, had your condition improved?
A Well, when I went back to work, I was feeling the same thing. I mean, feeling the same way.
Q Were you puzzled about why Dr. Rimmer had given you a release to go back to work when you weren’t any better than when you went to see him?
A Well, not really, because I didn’t want to go back to him anyway.
Q Why did you not want to go back to Dr. Rimmer?
A I was — he wasn’t doing nothing for me.
Q What did you then decide to do?
A Oh, me and my wife sit down in the house and discussed it that the best to go see another doctor.
Q And, who did you decide to go see?
A I decided to go see John Albracht in Amarillo.
None of the above testimony was objected to by the appellant. Nevertheless, assuming, arguendo, that the testimony concerning what Mr. Coronado found out from Dr. Rimmer is hearsay, there is ample other probative evidence in the record, related by Dr. Albracht and other witnesses called by Coronado, which is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s total and permanent incapacity finding.
In deciding American Home’s legal and factual insufficiency challenges, we excluded Coronado’s testimony concerning what he found out from Dr. Rimmer. The evidence which we did consider in determining American Home’s challenges is briefly summarized in the opinion as follows:
The evidence shows that Armour planned to close the Hereford plant by 31 October 1980. Coronado could not do the beef hooking work which he had performed before his injury. Nor could he do the lighter beef pushing work and, as a result, was forced to exchange jobs with co-workers who did the even lighter scaling work. The chiropractor [Dr. Al-bracht] testified that Coronado had severe nerve involvement at the L — 5 level in his lower back, that the nerve involvement caused swelling and numbness in his left leg and foot, and that the condition was permanent. The evidence further establishes that most companies require a pre-employment physical examination, that that examination is a major factor in obtaining employment, and that, in general, companies do not employ individuals with lower back problems for hard manual labor.
The first assignment of error is overruled.
In its second assignment of error, American Home asserts that this court erred “by finding that the testimony of appellee’s coworker George Perea was evidence of Coronado’s inability to do the beef pushers [sic] job when in fact George Perea testified appellee could do the work of a beef pusher.” We made no such finding. We summarized the testimony of all of the witnesses and concluded that a review of all of the testimony, including Coronado’s, supported a finding that Coronado could not do the beef pushing work. That there is evidence to the contrary does nothing more than raise a question of fact for the jury, and the jury has resolved the matter. We will not substitute our judgment for the jury’s by holding that the finder of fact is bound by one answer to one question by one witness which is taken out of context. The second assignment of error is overruled.
*826In its third assignment of error, American Home maintains that this court erred in holding that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the jury’s answers to the total and permanent incapacity issues “by failing to apply the proper legal test to the fact that there was no evidence that appel-lee’s [Coronado’s] return to work was as a result of economic necessity.” In effect, American Home argues that an injured worker who returns to the same work after an injury is precluded from a total and permanent incapacity recovery unless there is evidence that the injured worker returned to work out of economic necessity. We disagree. See Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Heath, 197 S.W.2d 130, 133 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1946, writ ref’d n. r. e.); see also 39A Texas Digest, Workmen’s Compensation, Key Numbers 840, 1636, for other cases to the same effect. The third assignment of error is overruled.
American Home’s motion for rehearing is overruled.