Court Opinion

ID: 9770538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:08:37.580098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.425428
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority purports to apply the appropriate standard of review and determines that the jury’s damage finding is not “so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust.” In my view, however, the majority actually overrules Ms. Peterson’s points of error because it decides there is “some evidence of probative force” to support the jury’s non-findings. See In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1951) (per curiam). Because I believe a correct application of the appropriate standard of review mandates a new trial, I respectfully dissent.
As the concurrence suggests, the appropriate standard of review is illustrated in Novosad v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1994, no writ). In Novosad, the plaintiffs back was injured as a result of a car accident. The jury awarded $1,760 in lost wages; $7,600 for past and future medical expenses; $10,000 for pain and mental anguish; and $10,000 for physical impairment. Id. at 548, 551. On appeal, Novosad contended that the jury’s award of $7,600 for past and future medical expenses was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence “because the medical care award fails to provide for the cost of future surgery.” Id. at 548. This court disagreed — not because the jury was entitled to reject uncontroverted expert testimony, as the concurring opinion suggests, but because the expert testimony in that case was conflicting.
Novosad’s first physician, Dr. Holmes, concluded that Novosad did not need surgery. Id. at 548. Novosad’s second physician, Dr. Dennis, determined that Novosad did not exhibit the objective signs of a herniated disc, id.; therefore, he also did not recommend surgery, although he reported that No-vosad may need to consider that possibility. Id. at 548-49. “In his deposition, Dr. Dennis stated he chose his words very carefully, and that if he had believed [Novosad] definitely needed surgery ..., he would have said the same in his report.” Id. at 549. Additionally,-Dr. Dennis also stated that “surgery would not be scheduled, or even recommended, unless an epidural injection, a procedure not yet administered, failed to work.” Id. at 551. A third expert, Dr. Jinkins, reviewed Novosad’s MRI and indicated that, although disc herniation was a possibility, “there was ‘[n]o definite evidence of disc herniation.’” Id. at 550. Finally, Novosad herself testified that “she would not even consider surgery unless it was convenient to her work schedule as a teacher.” Id. at 550.
This court rejected Novosad’s argument, noting that “[h]ere there was contradicting expert testimony presented, and even Dr. *481Dennis’ testimony was not free from contradiction and inconsistency.” Id. at 550-51. The court concluded that “[i]t is not our place to substitute our judgment for that of the jury, particularly where, as here, the jury has failed to find a fact upon which the appellant had the burden of proof and conflicting testimony was presented.” Id. at 551 (emphasis added). In my view, the distinctions between Novosad and this case demonstrate that applying the well-established standard of review to the record before us mandates that we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.
As mentioned above, Novosad herself testified that “she would not even consider surgery unless it was convenient to her work schedule as a teacher.” Id. at 550. That is not the situation here. Contrary to defendants’ suggestion in their brief, Ms. Peterson did not testify “that she had no plans to ever have surgery.” Rather, she testified: “I know there will come a time when I have to have this surgery done,” but she said she was “going to stand the pain as long as [she] can.” Novosad is also distinguishable and indeed instructive in a second respect. The expert testimony before the jury in Novosad as to the need for future surgery was conflicting and even internally inconsistent, while in this case the four doctors that testified either expressed no opinion or in substance agreed as to at least one issue — as a result of the accident, Ms. Peterson suffered. an injury to her lower back and the lower back injury would, at the very least, require a diagnostic surgical procedure (the disco-gram) to determine whether corrective surgery would be required.
Four doctors testified regarding Ms. Peterson’s physical injuries: Dr. Richter, a general practitioner; Dr. Viola, a chiropractor; Dr. Earle, a spine specialist who is board-certified in orthopedic surgery, spine surgery, and pain management and Ms. Peterson’s treating physician; and Dr. Guzman, a board-certified specialist in orthopedic surgery and the independent medical examiner. Dr. Richter saw Ms. Peterson only once on October 26, 1990 — three days after the accident. Ms. Peterson was bruised on the right side of her head, her left knee, and her right leg. Dr. Richter testified that, since he did not believe at that time that Ms. Peterson had suffered a spinal injuiy and because muscle injury can disguise other, more serious injuries, and strong pain medication can cover up these more serious problems, he prescribed only Tylenol and advised Ms. Peterson to return for an orthopedic referral if her problems persisted. Dr. Richter never again saw Ms. Peterson for injuries related to the collision, and he testified, unequivocally, that he would defer to the board-certified experts, Drs. Earle and Guzman, as to whether Ms. Peterson suffered a spinal injury as a result of the accident.
Approximately one month after the accident, at the recommendation of her previous attorney, Ms. Peterson saw Dr. Viola. Dr. Viola performed various physical tests, including x-rays, and determined that, while there was no question but that Ms. Peterson had sustained injuries to her neck and back as a result of the accident, he did not at the time believe that the injuries were permanent. However, Dr. Viola also testified that his examination revealed nothing inconsistent with the reports of Drs. Earle and Guzman. He further explained that a microscopic tear in a disc is often not demonstrated early on and can degenerate to the point that it becomes herniated. After the first visit, Dr. Viola never saw Ms. Peterson again.
Approximately seven months after the accident, on the recommendation of two of her neighbors, Ms. Peterson became a patient of Dr. Earle’s; by the time of trial, Dr. Earle had seen Ms. Peterson five times. Additionally, at the request of the defendants, Ms. Peterson was examined by the independent medical examiner, Dr. Guzman. Both Dr. Earle and Dr. Guzman believed Ms. Peterson had suffered an injury to her knee as a result of the collision; however, neither considered the injury permanent, and neither recommended surgery. Both doctors also agreed that Ms. Peterson had suffered an injury to her neck as a result of the accident. They disagreed, however, on the recommended treatment. Dr. Earle believed a diseogram would indicate corrective surgery would be required, while Dr. Guzman believed Ms. Pe*482terson would require only an anti-inflammatory medication and exercise.
As to Ms. Peterson’s lower back, both Dr. Earle and Dr. Guzman agreed that Ms. Peterson had suffered a permanent injury to her lower back as a result of the collision, and the only definitive means of determining whether this injury would require corrective surgery was to perform a diseogram, which is itself a surgical procedure with all the attendant risks. As to Ms. Peterson’s lower back injury, the only purported dispute between Drs. Guzman and Earle was actually not a dispute at all. Dr. Guzman gave no opinion as to the probability that a diseogram would indicate the need for corrective surgery, while Dr. Earle testified that there was a 51% chance that the diseogram would indicate the need for corrective surgery as to one or more discs. Dr. Earle further testified that a diseogram would cost approximately $900 and, if required, the surgery on Ms. Peterson’s lower back would cost between $55-60,000.
In summary, both Dr. Richter and Dr. Viola deferred to Drs. Earle and Guzman, and Drs. Earle and Guzman agreed that Ms. Peterson had suffered injuries to her neck and lower back as a result of the collision. While they disagreed as to the necessary treatment for Ms. Peterson’s neck injury, Drs. Earle and Guzman agreed that Ms. Peterson needed to have a diseogram to determine whether corrective surgery on her lower back was indicated. Since Dr. Guzman did not testify either as to the cost of the diseogram or as to whether the diseogram would indicate the need for corrective surgery, the uncontradicted expert testimony before the jury established:
| To determine whether corrective surgery on her lower back would be required, Ms. Peterson would be required to spend approximately $900 in future medical expenses (the cost of the disco-gram);
} There was a 51% chance that the disco-gram would be positive, and Ms. Peterson would be required to undergo corrective surgery on her lower back at a cost of $55-60,000.
The uncontroverted expert testimony thus establishes that, if Ms. Peterson was injured as a result of the accident, she was entitled to at least $900 for the diseogram and, in reasonable medical probability, the $55-60,000 for corrective surgery on her lower back. This evidence was not impeached; it was not inconsistent with other evidence; and there was no other discemable reason for the jury, having already found an injury resulting from the collision, to have disregarded it. See William Powers, Jr. & Jack Ratliff, Another Look at “No Evidence” and “Insufficient Evidence,” 69 Texas L.Rev. 515, 524 (1991).
I recognize that non-surgical treatments were recommended by Drs. Richter and Viola shortly after the accident, as pointed out in the majority opinion; however, as noted above, both of these doctors also deferred to the board-certified specialists, Drs. Guzman and Earle, and both explained why their initial diagnoses might differ from those of the specialists. I also recognize that there is some evidence from which the jury could have inferred that Ms. Peterson was not injured or, if she was injured, it was not as a result of the collision, as pointed out in the majority and concurring opinions. However, the jury clearly did not make either inference; instead, the jury expressly found in response to Questions 1, 2, and 3 that Ms. Peterson’s injuries resulted from the collision, and the collision was proximately caused by the negligence of the driver, his employer, and Ms. Peterson. Finally, I recognize that Ms. Peterson had discontinued her physical therapy program, and neither the diseogram nor any corrective surgery had been performed or scheduled at the time of trial. However, these facts, in my view, are merely some evidence of probative force to support the jury’s nonfinding of future damages; they do not render the experts’ uneontroverted evidence regarding Ms. Peterson’s need for future surgery on her lower back less than “overwhelming.”
I would reverse and remand this case for a new trial.