Court Opinion

ID: 9770622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:13:04.165621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:19.016953
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Justice,
concurring.
For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Peterson v. Reyna, 908 S.W.2d 472, 480 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995)(Dun-can, J., dissenting), modified on other grounds, 920 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.1996), I do not agree with the majority that a jury is never bound by a physician’s uneontroverted expert testimony on past medical expenses.1
In Peterson, the uncontradicted expert testimony established that “as a result of the accident, Ms. Peterson suffered an injury to her lower back and the lower back injury would, at the very least, require a diagnostic surgical procedure (the discogram) to determine whether corrective surgery would be required.” Peterson, 908 S.W.2d at 481 (Duncan, J., dissenting). The uncontrovert-ed expert testimony further established that a discogram would cost approximately $900. Id. at 482. In my view, therefore, the jury’s finding of zero future medicals was not supported by factually sufficient evidence. Id.
This case, however, is distinguishable from Peterson because here the experts plainly disagreed on the extent to which Mr. Barra-jas’ injuries were caused by the accident. Therefore, I join in the majority’s opinion insofar as it is based upon the controverted nature of the experts’ testimony as to the extent of the injuries caused by the accident and concur in the judgment.

. X also note that each of the panel members in Peterson wrote separate opinions; therefore, there is no opinion of the court in that case.