Court Opinion

ID: 9632480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:16:29.532782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:17.235742
License: Public Domain

DAUPHINOT, Judge,
dissenting on motion for rehearing.
On Appellee’s motion for rehearing, I withdraw my dissenting opinion issued April 12, 2007, and substitute the following.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversing the jury’s verdict and substituting its own judgment because the evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
Dr. Mosier’s testimony does not conclusively negate the producing cause element. Although Dr. Mosier testified that he was aware of the risks of using the TLC-55, his testimony clearly revealed that he was not aware of the full extent of the risks at the time of Ms. Meyer’s surgery. The majority finds that Dr. Mosier’s testimony was unclear. Apparently the jury, however, who was faced not with a cold record but a live witness, clearly understood Dr. Mosier’s testimony. He testified that he would have taken a warning letter very seriously, but he received none. He further explained,
If [safety alerts] come from the company, it means that the company has had a chance to really review the prod*520uct itself, whether it be a medication or a medical device product, enough that they are taking the time to warn you about these — these situations. It’s different when it comes from the company than if it’s just something that you heard or just a report that was given.
Because of the knowledge that Dr. Mosier gained through Ms. Meyer’s treatment and the litigation, he has abandoned his use of Ethicon’s stapler. He also contacted Ethicon to report the problems he had experienced with the TLC-55 in treating Ms. Meyer and at least one other patient.
Based on the record as a whole, I would hold that there was evidence to support the jury’s determination of causation.1 Because anything more than a scintilla of evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury finding,21 dissent from the majority’s reversing and rendering on this ground.

. See Cont’l Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 450 (Tex. 1996); Leitch v. Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114, 118 (Tex.1996).

. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d at 450; Leitch, 935 S.W.2d at 118.