Court Opinion

ID: 9829582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:27:17.782283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.214934
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 In our original opinion we held that the statement made by the deceased to Dr. Hudson, “that another man fell upon his back and shoulder,” was admissible as a history of the case given to Dr. Hudson upon which he might base his diagnosis of the illness of the deceased. We were in error in this holding, and that part of the opinion is withdrawn. We believe that such statement was not admissible if proper objections had been made thereto. The statement was not res gestae. It was made some thirty days after the accident. A history of the case given by an injured person to a physician for the purpose of enabling such physician to properly diagnose his case is ordinarily admissible. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule, one exception being when such statements relate to the disputed issue of how the injury occurred. Missouri K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W. 787; Lumbermen’s Reciprocal Ass’n. v. Adcock et al., Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W. 645; 67 A.L.R. page 25. This exception was recognized in Walker v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 131 Tex. 57, 112 S.W.2d 170.
The statement was hearsay, incompetent, not legal evidence and should not have been included in the hypothetical questions propounded to Dr. Snow and Dr. Southard. Reed v. Barlow, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 933.
In response to motions for rehearing filed by both appellant and appellees, we have again carefully reviewed the record in this case and adhere to the rulings made in our original opinion, except as above indicated.
The motions for rehearing are overruled.