Court Opinion

ID: 9768620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:12:25.008128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:42.578666
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, the insurance carrier contends that the workman, Nelson, judicially admitted that his only disability was in the use of his arm. The insurance carrier relies on the following testimony of Nelson on cross-examination:
Q. Now, in the deposition that we took last week from Dr. Citron, he says to us, Page 8, he says to us that your continuing trouble is that you are unable to place your arm in the overhead position; is that a true statement?
A. Yes sir.
Q. He says also that you are—the continuing impairment, physical impairment the he detects with you is in your ability to use that right arm; is that also a fair statement?
A. Yes sir.
The quoted questions reasonably can be interpreted to inquire whether the carrier’s attorney was correctly stating Dr. Citron’s deposition testimony. If Nelson so interpreted the questions, his affirmative answers could not be admissions concerning the extent of the disability which he, himself, experienced. In any event, we do not believe that the quoted testimony would amount to an admission that Nelson’s only continuing trouble was to his arm, especially in view of his prior testimony concerning problems which he was experiencing in the use of his shoulder. We are of the opinion that the quoted statement does not meet the standard set out in Griffin v. Superior Insurance Company, 161 Tex. 195, 338 S.W.2d 415, 419 (1960), that the statement relied upon as a judicial admission be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The motion for rehearing is overruled.