Court Opinion

ID: 9768176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:45:44.826896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:37.180056
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
As a part of its motion for rehearing appellant makes request for additional findings of fact, as follows:
1. The hernia operation was performed with the knowledge and consent of the appellee.
2. No physicians testified and the ap-pellee offered no medical evidence.
3. There was no medical evidence as to the relative necessity of any of the several operations.
4. There was no medical evidence as to the relative gravity or complexity of any of the several surgical operations performed upon appellee.
5. There was no medical evidence as to the relative disabling-nature of any of the several operations.
6. There was no medical evidence that there was not an indirect relation between the hernia and the appellee’s loss or disability.
7. There was no medical evidence that the hernia did not cause or aggravate the hemorrhoids or the nodule.
8.There was no medical evidence that the hernia did not contribute, either directly or indirectly, to the subsequent hospital admissions for hemorrhaging.
Request No. 1 is granted. Request No. 2 is substantially correct, but is qualified to the extent shown by the discussion under requests 3-8. The latter requests actually call for conclusions of law. They involve the contention that there was “no medical evidence” concerning the subjects mentioned and will be treated as “no evidence” points. Requests 3-8 have been considered in relation to appellant’s point one of its original brief which asserts that the trial court should have rendered judgment for appellant because the evidence conclusively established that the loss and disability claimed by appellee was caused by or contributed to by hernia, either directly or indirectly.
Appellant’s requests 3-8 are denied. Hospital records covering appellee’s three admissions during the period from January 7, 1964 to February 1, 1964 were offered by appellant and received in evidence without objection and upon stipulation that they were true and correct. Among other things, such records included reports and opinions of doctors who operated upon and treated appellee as well as nurses and laboratory records. The records, reports and opinions contained therein coupled with the testimony of appellee constituted legally sufficient evidence authorizing the jury to believe that appellee’s disability and loss of time were caused by the hemorrhoids and nodule conditions aside from the hernia.
We adhere to the conclusions expressed in our original opinion and appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.