Court Opinion

ID: 9669691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:06:32.161375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:59.822945
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Justice CASTILLO.
Appellants assert that the trial court reversibly erred by allowing testimony of superseded pleadings to inform the jury that the testifying doctors were once defendants in the case. The majority concludes that the evidence was not an admission, was inadmissible, and that the trial court’s error was reasonably calculated to and probably led to the rendition of an improper judgment. Respectfully, I disagree that appellants have shown reversible error.
We ordinarily do not find reversible error for erroneous rulings on admissibility of evidence where the evidence in question is (1) cumulative, and (2) not controlling on a material issue dispositive of the case. See Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.1989) (citing Whitener v. Traders and Gen. Ins. Co., 155 Tex. 461, 289 S.W.2d 233, 236 (Tex.1956)). Even assuming that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony and further assuming that appellants preserved error, respectfully, I would hold that: (1) the complained-of evidence was cumulative of evidence that the testifying physicians were not parties to the lawsuit, see Gee, 765 S.W.2d at 396; and (2) appellants, with the burden to show prejudicial error, have not shown the error “turns on” the particular evidence admitted, see Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex.2000); City of Brownsville v. Al*925varado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753-54 (Tex.1995); Whitener, 289 S.W.2d at 236.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.1

. I need not address the majority’s decision on the first through fourth issues presented because the fifth issue is dispositive. See Tex R.App. P. 47.1. Similarly, I need not address appellants’ sixth and seventh issues presented regarding juror misconduct, because the majority does not reach them. Id.