Court Opinion

ID: 9664321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:14:30.279382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:04.794040
License: Public Domain

TERRY JENNINGS, Justice,
dissenting from denial of en banc consideration.
I respectfully dissent from the denial of en banc review of this case. I agree with the reasoning of Justice Price’s dissent from the panel opinion.
It is well-settled in Texas that trial courts have the responsibility to ensure that expert testimony is not only relevant, but “rehable.” Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713, 726 (Tex.1998). Moreover, if an expert relies upon unreliable foundation data, any opinion drawn from that data is likewise unreliable. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 714 (Tex.1997). If expert testimony is not rehable, it is not evidence. Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc. v. Anderson, 87 S.W.3d 591, 595 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied).
*66It is axiomatic that the proponent of expert testimony has the burden of showing its reliability. Here, the proponent of the expert testimony in question failed to meet that burden, and the trial court’s subsequent change of heart, no matter the cause, cannot transform what is “no evidence” into some evidence. Given the extraordinary nature of this case, en banc consideration is required. Tex.R.App.P. 41.2(c).