Sendejar v. Alice Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc.

SENDEJAR, Sr., al., Appellants, et Jose AND

ALICE PHYSICIANS SURGEONS INC., al.,

HOSPITAL, Appellees. et

No. 1009. Texas, Appeals

Court of Civil

Tyler.

June 1977.

Rehearing Aug. Denied

failing to exercise the proper standard of rendering care in hospital services to Jose Jr.; Sendejar, (2) such failure was not a proximate patient’s cause of the paraplegia; (3) Dr. D. R. Halverson did not fail proper exercise the standard of care in the Jr.; treatment of Jose (4) Jose Jr., Christi, Gandy, Corpus I. Sam Francis Sendejar, Jr., failed to exercise ordinary Yates, Jr., Houston, Mullen, Robert R. M. operation care in the of his automobile Alice, appellants. for shortly prior to the time hospitaliza- of his Redford, Redford, Bur- Dyer, D. Cecil tion; (5) such was proximate failure Donnell, nette, Wray Woolsey, Ben A. & paraplegia; (6) of his paraplegia Donnell, Christi, Corpus ap- for Meredith & solely by injuries caused the by received pellees. him at accident; the time of the automobile (7) and neither the treatment by rendered MOORE, Justice. Dr. hospital Halverson nor the aggravated Ap- case. malpractice This is a medical pre-existing his condition or caused him to Sr., Sendejar, individually and pellant, Jose any past, present incur or future medical son, Jr., Sendejar, Jose as next friend of his expenses or compensatory damages. against appel- suit (appellant), instituted verdict, jury’s Pursuant to the the trial lees, Hospi- Physicians Surgeons and Alice court take-nothing judgment entered a Inc., Halverson, tal, alleging D. and Dr. R. against appellant. After his motion for negligent result of the acts and that as a overruled, new trial was appellant perfect- hospital of the and part omissions on the appeal. ed this Sendejar, occurring after Jose the doctor We affirm. Jr., hospital, the his son was admitted to permanent injuries spinal point, appellant to his Under the eleventh suffered con- complete paraly- and total tends that resulting “negative” finding cord in the of the jury response Special his chest down to his lower extrem- in sis from Issue No. 2 generally jury the alle- wherein the Appellees ities. denied refused to find that the affirmatively hospital’s gations petition proximate of the and was a paralysis by paraplegia suffered Jose of the alleged by appellant’s that suffered Jr., by caused son1 is Sendejar, proximately against overwhelming weight was negligence in over- contributory preponderance his own of the evidence. Under wrecking point appellant his automobile short- the twelfth turning and likewise con- hospitalized by jury’s “negative” finding and treated tends that ly before he was jury. refus- Halverson. Trial was before a Issue No. 3 wherein Dr. response special found in ed to find that Dr. D. R. Halverson was The Jr.,2 Sendejar, in is (1) hospital negligent negligent treating that was Jose issues “ISSUE NO. 2: 1. “ISSUE NO. 1: preponderance you of the a preponderance find from Do you a find from Do Hospi- by Alice P&S acting Hospital, that such failure evidence Alice P&S that evidence paraplegia of proximate cause of a nursing em- tal was through administrative or its Jr., injuries dam- Jr., Sendejar, and the Sendejar, Jose rendering Jose ployees, care to resulting ages May therefrom? hospitalization 11:30 PM during from his not.” It was 1971, ANSWER: 17, AM, May 15, 1971, failed to 9:00 would which of care that standard exercise of the same a exercised have been 2. “ISSUE NO. 3: or similar in the same located size similar or preponderance you cir- community same or similar find from Do and under Jr., Sendejar, of Jose in his care evidence cumstances? failed to exercise Halverson Dr. Darrell fail.” It did ANSWER: nothing spine abnormal in the pre- rays he saw overwhelming weight and against sign and there was no Appellant spinal or cord the evidence. ponderance room ex- judgment ground emergency on the After the paraplegia. attack the does not Dr. support Sendejar evidence” to was admitted there is “no amination findings. hospital “to the service of” jury’s Halverson to the Gonzales, at family physician, Dr. J. C. determining question

In of fac Dr. Halverson approximately p. 11:30 m. insufficiency points, tual of evidence we are elevated gave instructions that his bed be required to consider all the evidence in the every he be aroused thirty degrees, record, of, that in favor as well entire both hours, two to three and that he have bath- judgment. Garza v. as that morning. privileges following room Alviar, (1965). 395 S.W.2d 821 expert The testimony medical shows that Jose The record reveals that once an emergency room doctor admits a automo- involved in a one age was patient to the hospital, he has no further Benavides, Texas, May near bile accident responsibility toward patient whatsoev- p. 8:00 m. At approximately at er. While it is without dispute that Dr. driving he of the accident the time Halverson notify did not the patient’s fami- m.p.h. when his automo- approximately ly physician, undisputed evidence shows overturned twice. He bile left the road and that the emergency room doctor is not re- and found was thrown from the automobile quired to notify admitting physician at paces away. The evidence eight about the time the patient leaves the emergency Sendejar drinking at shows that had been room and is admitted hospital. into the of the accident. The ambulance the time picked up him observed no driver who It undisputed is that neither Dr. J. C. any part body except of his movement Gonzales, doctor, family nor other he was able to move his head. He was that physician Sendejar saw from the time he was admit- hospital taken to the where he emergency Saturday left the room on eve- emergency approximate- to the room at ted 15, 1971, ning, until May Monday morning, ly p. 10:10 m. May During time he was duty emergency regularly by hospital The doctor on in the attended ap- nurses Sendejar proximately every the time arrived at the two hours. Being room at un- Gonzales, At the hospital was Dr. D. R. Halverson. able to contact Dr. J. C. the nurs- hospital to the es called Dr. time he was admitted Sende- Halverson who was still on jar semi-stuporous, duty emergency was in a combative in the room and advised Sendejar condition which was en- non-cooperative complaining him that was of back he had been drink- possibly pains physician hanced because and that he had not seen a con- ing. Dr. Halverson testified that such since the time he had been admitted and very diffi- rendered his examination he they really dition felt needed to see a specific complaint was no physician. prescribed cult because there Dr. Halverson a seda- com- pain. He testified that he made a go patient’s tive but did not room. examination, including the plete physical duty One of the nurses on testified that on and was unable to find taking x-rays, Sunday pa- afternoon she noticed that wrong except patient that the had anything respond tient’s lower extremities did not suffering from a According abrasions and was verbal to the hospital some command. upon records, however, examination concussion. He testified the first time the nurses lower neurological Sendejar reflexes in the suffering that all discovered that was normal but that appeared paralysis p. Sunday extremities to be from was 8:00 m. at moving his patient not observe the evening patient he did when it was noted that the emergency in the room. legs appear while he was did not to be able to move his lower examining that after the x- He testified extremities. size, or similar under the same circum- similar been exer- which would have of care standard physician reasonably prudent Al- stances? by in

cised ice, Texas, community fail.” the same or did not ANSWER: He or in a According promulgated by to the rules was by injuries caused to the soft tissues staff, patient if a was in need and the swelling bleeding spinal in the doctor, of a duty it was the of the floor cord. He testified that the paralysis came admitting nurse to call the physician. If on gradually and that the function of the admitting physician not could be located spinal cord was lost in increments. He fur- duty it was the nurse’s to call physician ther testified that the fact that Sendejar him, covering if for he could not be had some movement in legs when he found, duty it was the nurse’s to call the was admitted to the emergency room was physician who was staff on call for that an indication spinal cord had not week. There is evidence that the floor been completely severed. He testified that attempted nurse to contact of these proper attention, medical para- total physicians except Dr. J. C. Gonzales. When plegia prevented could have been or at least finally Dr. J. C. Gonzales was contacted on could have been partially prevented and 17th, Monday morning, May he advised that the failure to proper receive medical patient he not see the could but that he was, care opinion, in his the producing would send Dr. Dostal. After Dr. Dostal paraplegia. He admitted that upon arrived and examination found Sende- the injury was difficult to detect on the jar suffering to be from paralysis flaccid x-ray picture taken by Dr. Halverson and from the waist a spinal down due to cord that neither he nor Dr. Halverson would injury, Dr. Dostal then directed that have detected the injury in the absence of a patient Hospital be transferred to Memorial complaint pain of back patient. Christi, Texas, Corpus where he would be Dr. Craig Joseph Norstrom and Dr. G. treated Dr. Rufino Gonzales. Klotz, neurosurgeons, both testified that Cavazos, aunt, Sendejar’s Emma testified they saw Sendejar after he arrived at Me- Sunday, that she visited him from May Hospital morial Corpus They Christi. 16th, Monday morning he until when was testified that studies, as a result of x-ray Corpus transferred to Christi. testified She they were of opinion that Sendejar’s requested that on several occasions she spinal cord severely crushed and sev- get to nurses a doctor and was told that Dr. ered at the time of the automobile accident J. C. Gonzales was not available. She testi- and that such injuries caused immediate spite that in of her many requests fied for paralysis They at that time. testified that doctor, get the nurses to another no doctor in their opinion he was paralyzed at the came until Dr. Dostal arrived at approxi- time he emergency reached the room at the mately Monday morning. 8:00 o’clock She hospital and that type the of medical treat- on Sunday also testified that she observed ment he received thereafter would not have Sendejar legs to move his and kick the made any difference whatsoever because he legs complained sheet from his when he of Thus, would paralyzed. have still been ac- being too warm. Other friends who visited cording to testimony Sendejar’s para- their Sunday him on afternoon also testified that plegia split occurred at the second he re- they legs also saw him move his and ob- ceived the injury in the automobile acci- served him to kick off the covers. dent. They explained that the movement A. E. Minyard, orthopedic surgeon Dr. an in legs being his after admitted to the hos- by appellant, response called testified in to pital was due to spasms flexor which was a Sendejar hypothetical question a that suf- phenomenon following natural paraplegia. fourth dorsal verte- fered a fracture of the Gonzales, Dr. Rufino orthopedist, an tes- bra as a result of the automobile accident tified x-ray that as a result of his studies he Sendejar that was not opinion and Sendejar found that had received a severe paralyzed when he was admitted the injury to his spinal cord in the automobile hospital paralyzed when he was but was accident the injury and that nature of the transferred from the on the follow- spinal to his ing Monday. opin- ordinarily He testified that in his cord would result in Sunday paralysis ion the commenced and death. He testified that the injury received paraplegia argues presented that under the facts here accident made in the automobile and, even if sur- opinion, contributory negligence in his the of inevitable defense at 8:00 a. m. performed been should gery had not have been submitted to the would morning patient that the Sunday Sendejar of negligence because the in sus- paralyzed as a result of the still been injury have taining previous would not consti- caused injuries spinal to his cord malpractice. tute a defense to his claim for accident. automobile agree with this contention. We spi- agreed witnesses that All medical To constitute a bar to a suit for on the injury readily was not detectable nal contributory negligence of malpractice, by Dr. Halverson and x-ray picture taken patient must have been an active and Dr. Halver- physician situated as that contributing cause of injury efficient not be at that time would son had been claim; made the patient’s basis of the it injury reading from expected to detect co-oper must have been simultaneous and especially view of the x-ray pictures ating alleged fault with the of the defend patient complain did not of fact ant, must have entered into the creation of All medical witnesses who tes- pains. back the cause of action and must been have an subject that Dr. Hal- tified on the testified element in the transaction which constitut under did all that he could have done verson Moore, (Tex.Civ. ed it. Lee v. 162 S.W. 437 no medical circumstances. There was App. 1913) grounds, rev’d on other — Dallas Halverson failed to exer- testimony that Dr. (1919); 109 Tex. S.W. see 61 ex- proper standard of care in his cise Physicians Surgeons, etc., Am.Jur.2d patient. and treatment of the amination 108; sec. see also 50 A.L.R.2d 1043. balancing all weighing After In the instant case nothing there is of foregoing testimony, as well as all of suggest Sendejar was guilty record, evidence in the we find that type of negligence occurring simultaneously agree appellant’s contention cannot co-operating alleged with or with the fault findings Issues Nos. Furthermore, appellees. there is against overwhelming weight and 3 are nothing suggest in the evidence to of the evidence. Points preponderance being emergency after admitted to the therefore overruled. eleven and twelve are hospital, Sendejar room the committed through 3 constitute the Special Issues any negligent which act could be construed issues relied on only primary contributing as a cause to his claim for a cause of action to establish malpractice appellees. asserted obtain against appellees. Having failed to Consequently, under the facts here the de findings primary negli- on the favorable fense contributory negligence was not issues, failed appellant it follows that gence applicable and should not been have sub against either to establish a cause of action jury. mitted to the judg- or Dr. Halverson and the the sustained unless reversible ment must be brings question This us to the of remaining points of by is raised error appellant whether suffered harm as a result error. jury. of such issues to the of submission long It has been the rule in this state that through points first tenth of Under the relating all issues jury where the answers the trial appellant error the contends primary negligence to in favor of the de appellees to permitting court erred in fendants, here, any as error in the manner jury to the plead, prove and submit submitting contributory issues as to the contributory negligence. In re- defense of 6, plaintiff of the is immaterial. Issues Nos. 5 and sponse to case, judgment In no other than Jr., the instant Sendejar, failed to jury found that Jose appellees the one in favor of the could have operation in the of his ordinary use care been rendered the trial court on the failure was a and that such automobile which the appellees verdict and the error of injury. Appellant of his proximate cause 886

complain 1974, was therefore immaterial and e.); writ ref’d n. r. [14th Martin Dist.] Haddad, Crow, harmless. Brown & Root v. 142 v. 724 (Tex.Civ.App.— S.W.2d 624, 339, (1944); Tex. 180 S.W.2d Ham 1963, writ). Texarkana v. Ry., mon Texas & N. O. 382 S.W.2d 155 Appellant next contends that the trial 1964, (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler writ ref’d n. r. — court excusing jurors erred in who, certain (Tex. e.); Morgan, v. Smith S.W.2d trial, prior to had rendered excuses to the 1950, dism’d). Civ.App. Antonio writ — San Sheriff, District Clerk and other officials in points through one ten Appellant’s are 2120, violation of Article Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. overruled. Ann. points through fourteen Under seventeen The prior record reveals that to trial ap- appellant urges that the trial court erred in pellant was furnished a list showing that 44 entering judgment jury’s based find- jurors out of a panel approximately 11,12,13 to ings Special Issues Nos. and 14 had been prior excused to the trial and jury appellant wherein the found that present were not in the courtroom at that damages. sustained no The basis of appel- Appellant time. complaint prior made no judgment regard lant’s attack on the in this complained to trial and for the first time in findings jury is that of the his motion for new trial. damages suffered no are great weight preponderance of the regulating Under the statute evidence. jurors, Clerk, excuses of neither the District any Sheriff nor other official is authorized question damages The was submitted jurors. to excuse Such is power conferred jury by special covering four issues solely upon the court. force past litigant, To a expenses and future medical as well as over objection, compensatory damages. Following proceed to trial each is- where sue, prospective jurors the court instructed the as fol- have jury been excused con trary lows: to the statute would no doubt consti tute reversible error. Texas Ry. & N. O. v. “Do not include amount for con- Jacks, 306 S.W.2d 790 (Tex.Civ.App existing dition the hospitalization before . —Beau 1957, mont e.); writ ref’d n. r. Ulmer v. Jose on May Mackey, 242 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.Civ.App.— except you to the extent that find from a Worth, 1951, Forth e.). writ ref’d n. r. In preponderance of the evidence that such order for the error to constitute reversible aggravated by condition was the defend- error, however, appellant had ants, them, duty you or either of if have so register complaint prior some to the time found.” Having regis was selected. foregoing Under instruction objection tered no having filed no mo court, given agree we cannot quash tion to jury panel, ap we think appellant’s finding contention that pellant right complain. waived his Rule damages” contrary “no is to the over 434, Tex.R.Civ.P.; Hartford Accident & In whelming weight preponderance Haddock, (Tex. v. dem. Co. 511 S.W.2d 102 However, found, evidence. even if so e.); n. r. Civ.App. Tyler writ ref’d — this would not call for a reversal of the Jacks, supra. Appel Texas & N. O. Ry. judgment findings by because of the eighteenth lant’s and nineteenth are points appellees that neither of the was guilty overruled. negligence proximately causing of Sende- jar’s paraplegia. findings In view of those In his twentieth twenty-first points and jury’s damage answers to the issues contends that the trial court erred submitting were rendered immaterial and as such Special Issue No. 10 to the prejudicial jury would not show harm. South because said issue was an inferential Andrade, properly ern Pine Lumber Co. v. 132 Tex. rebuttal issue which was not sub- 372, 124 Eaton, (1939); Seeley v. mitted 277 S.W.2d 334 under Rule of Texas Rules (Tex.Civ.App. By jury of Civil Procedure. this issue the 506 S.W.2d — Houston reason, paraple- 2 for some ulterior requested was to find whether No. we must Jr., Sendejar, injuries and the gia jury of Jose assume that followed the court’s resulting therefrom were sole- damages solely its answer on instruction and based by injuries by received him at ly caused the evidence. accident. The the time of the automobile event, any controlling since the In “They were.”3

jury found special relating appellees’ alleged issues proxi cause” and “sole “Sole primary negligence liability were an re cause” issues constitute inferential mate by jury appellees, in favor of swered issues, longer and as such are no buttal submitting error in the manner of oth jury. McCane Sondock submitted definitions, er issues and such as special Distributors, Agency Detective v. Penland herein, appellant complains those of which Inc., (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d — Houston becomes immaterial and harmless. Brown 1975, history). no writ Rule Dist.] [14th Haddad, supra; Henry & Root v. Ameri 277, provides supra, specifically “Inferential Airlines, Inc., 123, can 413 S.W.2d 128-129 issues shall not be submitted.” rebuttal 1967, (Tex.Civ.App. writ). — Eastland should not have been submitted. The issue record, After a careful review of the entire Thus, becomes whether question we do not believe that the submission of of the issue resulted in harm to submission 10, Special though improper, Issue No. even 434, supra. Rule We have con appellant. was probably calculated to cause and did Appellant argues cluded that it did not. cause a improper judgment. rendition of an that, undisputed testimony since the shows 434, supra. Rule jury Special that the answered Issue No. 10 relating Matters to jury misconduct are refusing negligence to find that the before points made the basis of twenty-two hospital proximate was a through twenty-six. The misconduct com- Sendejar’s paraplegia (Special Issue No. plained by of consists of statements made 2), Special Issue No. giving jurors during jury Upon deliberation. together given with the instructions in con trial, hearing on the motion for new it therewith, jury nection caused the to be jurors was shown that some of the made negative Special lieve that a answer to Is the following (1) statements: this type of required sue No. 2 was in order to make the case hospitals causes insurance findings two causation consistent. We can go (2) hospitals rates to if up; and doctors agree reasoning. not with this by everyone were sued then there would be juror Special No testified that Issue No. 2 needed; no hospitals or doctors when negative in the solely was answered for the (3) that type against hospitals this of case purpose consistency. To hold that go makes our rates up. jury probably negative arrived at a answer Special No. 2 they probably Issue because undisputed The evidence shows they so, believed that if did not do then that none of foregoing statements were would conflict their prior jury their answer an- made to the time the answered high- Special would be 3 in Special jury swer to Issue No. Issue No. which the refus speculative and unwarranted. The ly part ed to find on the of Dr. Therefore, liberty Special alleged was at to answer Issue No. Halverson. since the negative either in the affirmative or misconduct occurred after Dr. Halverson they liability, on what found the facts to be had been exonerated from based fail see though even it would result in a conflict. how harm could have resulted to any showing appellant by alleged In the absence of that the reason of such miscon Issue duct insofar it negative finding made a as relates to the cause of solely injuries therefrom “ISSUE NO. 10: caused received him at the time of the automobile you preponderance find from a Do May accident which he had on 1971? paraplegia evidence that the of Jose They ANSWER: were.” injuries damages resulting and the 888 well alleged against Dr. Halverson. The aware of this fact. According

action to the during point jury in time deliberations at testimony adduced the hearing for new important trial, occurs is an which misconduct complained the remarks of were brief- determining probability factor in the ly only mentioned one jurors. or two Ferguson, v. 441 harm. Fountain S.W.2d The foreman testified there was pro- no (Tex.1969); Mrs. Baird’s Bread Co. v. 506 longed any discussion of of the remarks. Hearn, 159, (1957). 300 646 157 Tex. S.W.2d None appear of the remarks to have had alleged hold that the Consequently, we mis- relationship direct to the issue of causa- conduct could have had effect on not tion and for it this reason is difficult to jury’s Special the to Issue No. 3 answer understand could they how have influenced therefore no harm could have resulted to jury the answering in the issue. In view of respect appellant the with to his cause of the fact jury that the answered negli- the against action Dr. Halverson. gence issue in of appellant, favor it is diffi- cult to jury’s believe that the adverse find- hospital, regard the With ing on proximate the cause issue was jury experienced dif record shows that solely reached of the jury’s preju- because answering Special Issue No. 1. ficulty in against dice appellant’s claim. other issues before jury The then answered returning Special to Issue No. The evi alleged jury Whether the miscon alleged dence misconduct shows that duct in probably resulted harm to the com jury Spe occurred before the had answered plaining party question is a law for the 2 relating cial 1 and to whether Issues Nos. reviewing considering court after the rec negligent and was whether Barrington Duncan, ord as a whole. v. 140 proximate negligence such was cause of 510, (1943); Tex. 462 Lackey 169 S.W.2d v. Sendejar’s Since Issue paraplegia. Moffett, 715 (Tex.Civ.App.— 172 S.W.2d favor, appellant’s in no No. was answered 1943, writ). Fort Worth to harm could have resulted say alleged jury To that mis regard Consequently only to that issue. conduct in probably this instance caused the alleged issue to which the misconduct could improper judgment, rendition of an we proxi have harmful was the possibly been compelled would first be to conclude from mate cause issue. the record that as a whole but for the Appellant the statements argues alleged jury probably misconduct the would jury’s during made deliberation were have answered the cause issue proximate jury against all prejudice calculated to impose such a fashion liability as to on the Therefore, malpractice argues suits. he hospital. enough say It is not that the probably caused the the that the statements jury might have done so. possibly Condra jury proximate cause issue answer Rollin, 478, Funeral Home 158 Tex. against they preju- because were solely him (1958); Ry. Aultman v. Dallas S.W.2d & against malpractice claims. We are diced Co., Term. 152 Tex. S.W.2d this contention. not in accord with Had (1953). After a careful review of the entire by prejudice jury been motivated record, justi we we would be do not believe suits, appellant contends, as it malpractice fied in but for concluding alleged jury occurs to us that the would have also jury jury proba misconduct the would have issue adversely answered the bly in a manner favor answered the issue jury appellant. answered Since appellant. supra. able to Rule appellant’s favor but negligence issue proximate Appellant cause issue in the further contends that answered favor, logical jury think the more established because it hospital’s misconduct was during the deliberations brought made a was out deduction would be drinking at the Sendejar to answer been time good-faith effort each issue ac- had and also that Dr. cording to the The causation is- automobile accident evidence. J. C. have been sued rather sharply sue was contested and the Gonzales should There hospital. explanation, than Dr. Halverson and the With this we adhere to previous some indication in the record that Dr. J. our ruling holding is appellant right complain. should have been available to waived his any C. Gonzales In event error, patient any, or should notified the if could not have treat the have resulted in any for harm to in the hospital as to which doctor would cover absence of a showing by compelled is evidence that him that he was him. Also there try objectionable juror. his case before drinking. had been It is not error for an 434, supra; Contractors, Rule Palestine to discuss the evidence and reason Inc. Perkins, v. (Tex.1964); deductions therefrom. International- City able S.W.2d Hawkins, Smith, Sons, Germany Northern R. R. v. 269 S.W. 886 v. E. B. Great Antonio writ S.W.2d 23 (Tex.Civ.App. (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler writ — San — dism’d). twenty-two through e.). twen ref’d n. r. Accordingly Points the Motion for Rehearing are overruled. is overruled. ty-six probably the trial court com While

mitted several errors in the course of trial, do

lengthy not believe such errone rulings gravity were of such

ous

them, singularly collectively, or were either cause and did probably

calculated to judgment. of an improper

the rendition 434, supra. Appellant’s twenty- points

Rule twenty-eight are overruled.

seven Finding judgment error the reversible STERLING, widow, Appellant, Malvern a

of the trial court is affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND Rehearing ap- On Motion for counsel for COMPANY, Appllee. GUARANTY pellant challenges original opinion our No. 8011. wherein we stated he was furnished jurors showing panel list that 44 out of the Court Appeals Texas, of Civil After a review of 200 had been excused. Beaumont. supplemental transcripts subsequently July 28, parties, it now 1977. appears filed although appellant’s counsel was furnished Rehearing Aug. Denied jurors, a list of the 200 the list did not jurors indicate that had been

previously appears excused. It jurors juror’s

excused were shown on the kept by the District which

time book Clerk calling

list was used him in the names of jurors prior to voir dire examination.

The record reveals that when the District called list he not call the

Clerk did jurors previ- of the 44 who had been

names

ously appears excused. It thus that even

though did not showing counsel have a list jurors,

the excused he knew or should have jurors were

known that absent and unac- complaint

counted for and he made no

thereof.

Case Details

Case Name: Sendejar v. Alice Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jun 30, 1977

Citation: 555 S.W.2d 879

Docket Number: 1009

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.