Court Opinion

ID: 9644111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:48:13.442722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:08.775859
License: Public Domain

BLEIL, Justice,
concurring.
Although I agree with the majority’s decision in this case, I write separately to address the Parrishes’ contention that Dr. Brooks’ affidavit was not a basis for summary judgment because he did not specify the approved standard of care for a doctor. They specifically rely on this court’s opinion in Hammonds v. Thomas, 770 S.W.2d 1 *530(Tex.App.—Texarkana 1989, no writ). And, they generally cite Coan v. Winters, 646 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.App.—Forth Worth 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.), and Wheeler v. Aldama-Luebbert, 707 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1986, no writ).
Reliance on Hammonds for this assertion is misplaced. The language in Ham-monds relied on was dicta, voiced by only one justice on this court. See Hammonds v. Thomas, 770 S.W.2d at 3 (Bleil, J., concurring), 770 S.W.2d at 4 (Grant, J., concurring).
I agree that the Brooks affidavit set out specific details. I further believe that the affidavit was otherwise proper summary judgment evidence. Medical doctors are free to express their opinions that there were no acts of medical negligence committed. King v. Bauer, 688 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.1985). The notion that medical experts should testify only as to the standard of care, with the ultimate question of negligence being left to the jury, is no longer valid. Medical experts are allowed to express their opinions so long as the opinions are confined to relevant issues and are based on proper legal concepts. Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex.1987); Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 702, 704.