Court Opinion

ID: 9773384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:43:58.802931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:52.937317
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
The majority holds on the first point that Dr. Dunlop’s testimony was admissible. I respectfully disagree. Our supreme court has held on many occasions that it is the substance of the testimony, not its form, that is determinative. Schaefer v. Texas Employers’Ins. Assn., 612 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Tex.1981), Western Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Gonzales, 518 S.W.2d 524, 526 (Tex.1975). If there is no magic in the absence of the words “reasonable medical probability,” see Stodghill v. Texas Employers Ins. Assn., 582 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tex.1979), then there can be no magic when the words are present. It is apparent to this writer that Dr. Dunlop was simply using the magic words, but that his opinion was, as he candidly admitted, nothing but “guesswork or speculation.” I am constrained to concur because there was competent evidence from Dr. Mancini concerning the effect of the second injury. Therefore, this is some evidence from which the jury could find the answer of 70 percent. Appellant’s point of error being a no evidence point must, therefore, be overruled. Therefore, I concur in the result but not the reasoning.