Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Reese

STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY, Petitioner, REESE, Jr., Respondent.

Arthur

No. B-7799.

Supreme Court of Texas.

by a thousand doctors between Astro- Spring you Branch. Aren’t dome Buning? to to Dr. why curious as he went you why Mafrige Mr. Aren’t curious as to Hennessey, Thurlow & Edward J. Hen- Buning? sent him to Does not a Dr. Wilkins, Houston, nessey and Randall D. for plot sham or a out of all of this? evolve petitioner. Buning does then? Let’s send What do Mort, give him him over to old the old Mafrige George F. A. Stevens Sell- good. That’s 1-6-8-9-11-15 treatment. nau, Houston, for respondent. good pump can paper. That looks We on weeks, eight him for build on about six or POPE, Justice. high. The up real those medical bills question by ap presented this bills, obviously he has higher the medical Reese, Jr., peal plaintiff, is whether Arthur of got got all those to be hurt he has if sustained his prove burden to a good in front medical bills. It will look made counsel for Standard make itself jury. of a that not Does Fire Insurance Company constituted revers Does that not abundantly you? clear objection ible error in the absence of an this away credibility of entire eat at the motion that the court instruct situation? disregard The Industrial objected Reese’s counsel neither Accident Board had awarded Reese give any argument nor asked the court $1,120.00 incapacity, temporary for total to the it. Standard’s instruction about $2,528.10 permanent for partial incapacity was that theory trial $1,329.00 expenses, for medical total charges for unnecessary had incurred $4,977.10. of appealed, and the Standard $1,458.00 of physical therapy the amount judgment court rendered for Reese trial on doing him though the treatments verdict for the $870.00 sum credibility good. no Standard attacked incapacity for period total from March the evi- light of of the worker’s claim in 14,1975, 10, 1975; to June medical benefits regular employ- dence that Reese resumed $1,239.00, in the sum of and interest in the initial treat- ment short time after $179.91, $2,278.91. amount of for a total of ment, earned more worked time and full judgment should have been for earned before. money than he had ever $2,288.91. Reese, worker, appealed Mr. argued two Standard’s counsel also judgment, from that and the court civil released doctors had examined appeals reversed the reason judgment work, and those him as able to return to jury argument. From He then two doctors not testified. had our review of the we whole conclude showed that Reese argued that the evidence attorney Standard’s April therapy from received reversibly was neither nor harm treatments, further was released from judgment ful. We reverse court unnecessary treatments but resumed those appeals of civil and affirm the purpose build- months for the seven later the trial court. expenses. the medical ing up the amount of Counsel Standard Fire Insurance any dis- Reese had questioned He whether Company made this is all, deci- argued he ability at the basis for the the court reversal Reese’s case turn sion in the would appeals: continued, civil He credibility. then rationalizing. But that won’t make this claim valuable I am you all like Maybe feel So, Reese, enough. we to run in Dr. Bun- Mr. when Maybe have I am. But do ing. April can’t Buning, you Enter Dr. he is tells hurt ever be the never approximately and a half weeks can’t do that and will three really be- Mr. Reese Spring again, maybe after this same incident. Dr. does, then he Branch, if he Mr. He drove lieves that. And Astrodome. notation, telling credible, the truth. But it typed is not have on each of them the you put folks. It is not credible when all Reese’s Mafrige,” “bill who was Steven F. together, you put of these facts when attorney.

the Mafrige-Bachynsky-Buning combina- Reese, pre- Buning, examining after tion— physical therapy scribed which he detailed Honor, object. MR. MAFRIGE: Your pre- The printed prescription on a form. There is no any evidence of combination signed was not on scription Buning that Dr. keeps making and he inferences and slan- form; it was on Buning’s prescription Dr. strenuously object. derous remarks and I name of Mort prescription bearing He is outside the record. (licensed physical thera- Moriarty, L.P.T. may THE COURT: reply You to that pist). Moriarty had his offices Mr. closing on argument. Buning was Dr. building same in which Moriarty testified that he and located. Mr. was not because Buning personal friends. Dr. Dr. were evidence, there was direct as well infer- just come and visit Buning “would evidence, ences from the supported kill,” he said. office. He had time to Mr. Reese testified that he job 14, 1975, was on his on perform- March prescrip- Buning Dr. wrote two different ing his work as a cement He worker. was one physical therapy. tions for The first standing in about six inches of cement 8, 1975, April the treatments from when he “pop” sustained a in his back. on they were terminated until June when Another employee helped step him Buning wrote Buning. orders from Dr. Dr. cement, employer and Reese’s immediately prescription months second about seven had him taken to the Torno Medical Center calling daily January later on that was located in job Pasadena near the On treatments for two to four weeks. site. Dr. Torno examined and treated treatments, same his date Reese resumed Reese for about a prescribed month. He 5,1976. By until March they continued physical therapy treatments which Reese therapy had physical that time the bill for received for an estimated five or ten times. $1,458.00. grown to the amount of Torno, turn, Dr. referred Reese to a Dr. about Febru- Buning Dr. died sometime Podniac, orthopedic an surgeon. Both of ary, Bachynsky Dr. Nicholas took doctors, weeks, those after about six dis- Reese patients. over his office and He saw missed Reese as able to return to work. At 10, made an exami- on March 2 and March point, Reese went to see Dr. Eric Bun- Dr. prescribed nation but no treatment. ing, whom he not previously known. pre- Bachynsky testified that he did not Buning’s Dr. office was at that time lo- treatments, “I don’t therapy because scribe cated in Spring Branch. Reese testified any benefit to him.” think it would have that he went to see Dr. because his Bachynsky until not return to Dr. Reese did lawyer sent Mafrige him. Mr. was his law- then, according to November yer. Reese also testified that he lived in evidence, lawyer “The wanted because South Park near the Astrodome. When Mr. Dr. for re-evaluatiori.” him come Mafrige client, questioning his only to charges amounted Bachynsky’s total there exchange: was this opinion that expressed He $50.00. “Q. you got Buning’s How was it to Dr. by a nerve pain caused suffered office? ar- degenerative impingement root and also “A. You Buning. sent me to Dr. thritis, any symp- that Reese did not have “Q. lawyer Your did? one, objective tom that could be called “A. Yes.” injury required every symptom pa- 1975; credibility of the his reliance Friday, Reese was hurt on March had a tient, opinion, Reese he went to see and that in his lawyer days four later. That disability. There pharmacy sixty percent permanent are three bills in evidence. They are in the opinion name of Arthur but statement is we incapaci- From conclude that record of extent of Reese’s ty- of a close rela there was direct evidence attorney, Mr. Maf- tionship between Reese’s Moriarty n about Mr. Moriarty, rige, Morton Buning, and Dr. therapy treatments cannot understood by cross-exami Bachynsky. Whether except the context evi- of this additional relationship be advocacy, nation Moriarty dence. Mr. testified his bill- party properly witnesses tween ings twenty-one listed different kinds of evaluated, is the weighed, tested. therapy capable providing. which he was the evidence in jury’s function evaluate They numerically coded at the bottom that context. example, of each statement. treat- For ments gave Mr. Reese were coded in this “drove that Reese Standard’s fashion, explained: as he Astro- by a thousand doctors between the “Q. packs. Like No. 1 is hot 6 is No. see Dr. Spring dome Branch” to massage. ultrasound. 8 is No. No. long has improper. Hyperbole was not 9 is electrical stimulation. No. 11 techniques of figurative been one of the therapeutic exercise. And 15—No. part a arguments are advocacy. oral Such “A. Pelvic traction. language. Shake- legal heritage our “Q. traction, right. Intermittent pelvic blushing speare about “a thousand wrote you gave Now it looks to me like innocent apparitions” and “a thousand

him the 1-6-8-9-11-15 treatment In Nothing. shames,” Much About in Ado every time he was there. a wrote, give I “Now would Tempest he “A. pre- Because that’s what was furlongs for an acre of sea thousand III,

scribed.” “My Richard ground”; King barren tongues, several conscience hath a thousand defense claim Standard’s was that Reese’s tale tongue in a several every brings was a weak one and had almost no medical sleep to Hamlet, . “And a physicians basis. him Two released as able say and the thousand we end the heartache work, to do and the showed that evidence to”; is heir shocks flesh natural he returned to work in worked contin- honest, as world again, “To Hamlet uously a cement and earned more worker ten picked out of goes, one man is to be than ever he had earned before. Standard Juliet, he has thousand,” and Romeo urged only of any inca- good- times saying, “A thousand pacity subjective own Juliet rested Reese’s em- often been statements, night!” The method has Bachynsky as Dr. acknowl- edged. ployed point.1 a to make lamps daily fair women and brave flow “The shown o’er “Those thousand decencies Milton, from all her words and actions.” John men. By- happily.” Paradise Lost Lord hearts beat A thousand ron, Pilgrimage. bidding speed, at his Childe Harold’s “Thousands times, rest; post And o’er land left a name other and ocean without “He corsair’s virtue, They also serve who stand and wait.” and a thousand Link’d with one Milton, Byron, the Late On Massacre Piedmont. The Corsair. crimes.” conjure die or vayne “But thousands Die, without this or him “But in shee did college soe; endow a or a cat.” Alexan- presence depart To her Essays, Pope, Epistle him, der III. Moral tongues Having to allure a thousand inhumanity “Man’s to man Percy, goe.” Thomas one to him And but bid mourn.” Robert Makes countless thousands Canterbury. King Abbot of Bums, Man Was to Mourn. Made winged thoughts thou- flit to thee —a “If thousand “And homeless near a homes Moultrie, Forget Thee. in an hour.” John sand stood, voices, praises with her thousand “Earth pined near a thousand tables and want- And Coleridge, Hymn Taylor Samuel God.” Wordsworth, ed William Guilt and Sor- food.” Vale of Chamouni. row. disease, “Ring shapes foul out old “Strange harp strings that a of thousand gold; narrowing Ring lust of out Watts, keep long!” Should tune so Isaac old, Ring out the thousand wars Hymns Spiritual Songs. test- objective and structured place a more

The Harmless Error Rule reason, decisions ing For of error. one that ebbs The harmless error rule is pre- the tide resisted since 1941 have contemplates very and flows. Its existence decision surrounding the harm committed, sumed judi- an error has been but In tests. pre- find expectations perfect reversibility cial trials with several about continually contending for sumed harm argument, improper the case after an inconsistent his- revival.2 number prove complainant must alternately tory appellate which saw courts (1) prove things. He has the burden winner to range between a burden on the provoked, invited (2) that was not error prove no-harm to that of a burden trial proper (3) preserved that was harm, adopted Rules prove loser to objection, motion to predicate, as an such intend- harmless error. Its 434 and 503 and mistrial, (4) instruct, or a motion ed Air- effect was uncertain at first. See instruction, prompt by an curable not Coaches, Bennett, 144 line Motor Inc. v. statement, repri- or a withdrawal (1945); Myers v. McDonald, Texas judge. mand Thomas, 143 Tex. 186 S.W.2d 811 (1970). There Practice 13.17.2 Vuocolo, Civil (1945); § Rojas v. Term. Co. harm from Ry. Dallas & of incurable only rare instances Hendricks, complainant (1942). (5) prove burden to the further nature, extent degree and argument by its creeps into

Harmless error back error. How reversibly harmful practice subjective the when evaluations re- constituted Hamilton, 434, (1864); Ring years peace.” 12 see also Lee v. Alfred 438 the thousand of Tennyson, 413, (1854). In Memoriam. It was not until 1912 that Tex. 419 62a, hacking supreme “There are a thousand at the branch- S.W. x Rule 149 court its striking es of evil to one who is at the root.” (1912), to that for review returned the standard Thoreau, Henry David Walden. promptly 62a was error. But Rule of harmless disregarded people “Hundreds can talk for one who later, years Scott v. less than two think, can but thousands can think for one who 322, (1914), Townsend, S.W. 1138 106 Tex. 166 Ruskin, can see.” John Modem Painters. regained tenaciously presumed harm “The lowliest men would sooner face v. McKenzie Con former stature. San Antonio deaths, A thousand dreadful than come Co., 315, 989 150 S.W.2d 136 Tex. struction (1941); disgrace.” Before their loved ones in Lince Ins. Co. v. Traders & General Davidson, A Ballad a Coward. 220, (1937); cum, 585 130 Tex. 107 S.W.2d thousand, says, “One man Solomon Co., 247, Supply Chapin Tex. 76 Putnam 124 v. Will stick more than Rud- close a brother.” (1934); International Travelers’ S.W.2d 469 yard Kipling, The Thousandth Man. Bettis, 67, 1040 35 S.W.2d Ass'n v. 120 Tex. mine, every “For beast of the forest is 544, Odiorne, (1931); Tex. 249 v. 112 Golden the cattle a thousand hills.” Psalms (1923); v. Eastern Texas Electric Co. S.W. 822 50:10. Baker, (Tex.Comm’n App.1923). 254 S.W. 933 Kamack, Mystic Ed McMahon to disregard in mount The for Rule 62a resulted East, 4, 1979, April “A thousand welcomes Alexander, Proceedings ing criticism. See Show, you.” Tonight to NBC. Appellate Judges, 10 Texas Association of April “Any Sadat on act of terrorism 188, (1932); McKnight, Suggestion L.Rev. 189 against Egypt repaid will be thousand one Texas, Improving Procedure in 6 Tex Court fold.” 59, (1927); Report 76 of Texas Civil as L.Rev. Development 2. Mr. in The Justice Calvert Council, 204, 206 Judicial 11 Texas L.Rev. Texas, 31 Doctrine of Harmless Error Texas, (1933); The New Laws and State Bar of (1952), vascillating 1 Texas L.Rev. traces this 538, Procedure, Upon 548 Rules 9 Texas L.Rev. 1835, history. Prior to the orthodox rule of Stayton, Scope (1931); Function of The prevailed England. harmless error In that Pleading and Texas the New Federal Under Barrett, 919, year Crease v. 1 Cr. M. R. 149 & 16, Comparison, 27- 20 Texas L.Rev. Rules: A Eng.Rep. (1835), presumed 1353 reverted to Comment, Ap Appeal 29 Error — “heresy,” by Wig- harm rule. The so-called Odiorne, plication v. of Rule 62a Since Golden more, continued until the rule of harmless error (1934). full For a L.Rev. 346 13 Texas Wigmore, rule of 1 1864, was restored court. Calvert, Development of the discussion see (3d 1940). By Evidence 367 ed. Texas Texas, supra at Error in Doctrine of Harmless practice presuming had fallen into the harm 5-8. Mills, Bailey because of an 27 Tex. error. v. long continued, argument argument plaintiff’s whether left it the inference that repeated or abandoned and whether bring to conspired plaintiff counsel with proper was cumulative in- there error are pur suit for some malicious or fraudulent quiries. closely All of the must Acker, pose. Ramirez v. 124 S.W.2d (6) argument’s examined to determine 1939), aff’d, (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont probable finding. (7) effect on a material 647, 138 (1940). Since Importantly, a come from reversal must even curable under was held case, begins evaluation whole harm, the old rule of brief presumed with the voir dire and closing ends with the case, in this to which there was argument. The may record show fortiori, objection, no curable under weak, strong, cause is very close. From the rule of error. Wade harmless factors, all of these complainant must Ass’n, Texas Ins. show probability that court noted argument caused greater harm is than the strength timely requiring the rule probability grounded the verdict was objection prior improper argument to even proper proceedings and evidence. supreme 1941 and court to wrote that Co., Aultman v. Dallas Ry. & Term. gone length holding to had some (1953). Rules strong appeals prejudice become 503, Tex.R.Civ.P. when a disre harmless is instructed There was evidence partly in this them, logical it is gard “for which reason supplied himself, counsel for objection require an and instruction.” which showed the close connection between inflammatory injection new and lawyers treating and those Reese. through matters into the case objection argu- There was no to the first regarded exceptional instances been complains; ment about which he now there appeal An incurable an instruction. was no motion to instruct as to either of the prejudice category. racial falls into arguments. two had Reese’s counsel Haywood, Employers Ins. Ass’n v. opportunity reply in his clos- and did so 242, (1954). 153 Tex. The 266 856 S.W.2d ing argument, the argument and was not so “liar,” argument epithets, use in of the prolonged severe or as to reversi- to amount “fraud,” “faker,” “cheat,” “imposter” and ble error. that were disregard objections of made prior Precedents that to 1941 arose and Greyhound harmful. was Southwestern prejudicial hold that are was un- Lines, Dickson, 599, Inc. v. 149 Tex. 236 reliable, but even the discarded under rule (1951). unsupported charge S.W.2d 115 The harm, presumed by of one who sat while Howsley & Ja- perjury was incurable. hearing improper argument an without ob- Kendall, (Tex.1964). 562 cobs v. jection or motion was not later heard to cases, to Texas Those similar Gulf, complain Ry. about it. &C. S.F. Co. McCaslin, 273, 317 Ins. Ass’n v. Greenlee, 129, Tex. v. 70 8 131 S.W. an to 916 show that affront S.W.2d (1888). require- A pre-1941 instance of the it must equality which the court and the request promptly object ment that one and harshly. How- portray will be with dealt jury argu- instruction to disregard ever, ease Acker, a condemnation v. Tex. ment is Ramirez 134 138 Ramirez, with fraud was (1940). charged the In counsel that condemnor when there argued plaintiff’s was one that curable suit considered harmless and “stinks,” plaintiff a victim there was no objection was no when him,” design by somebody to use “scheme support in the for ought filing Andrews, that someone indicted for be Tex. 236 v. 149 City of Dallas suit, prosecuting the and that defendants (1951). 609 S.W.2d going pay “blood-money” in were not fail by opinion It is our form of a settlement been exacted as had instruction at petitioner urged ing object press and for an from others. The that the argument, injury. the time five his He waived his com months after said plaint. Turner, finished, Turner v. 385 S.W.2d 230 re- job until each worked (Tex.1964); Employer’s Maston assignment, for turned to his union the next Ass’n, 439, 331 907, 910 Ins. S.W.2d discharged, wages earned was never Sturgeon, Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. any prior time cement worker excess (1944). S.W.2d during The are that probabilities his life. testimony of Reese jury believed this looking

In at the whole state evidence, jury of the ren- strength own doctor and that weakness case, verdict, and the we conclude the basis of the upon dered careful verdict jury carefully its ver- considered evidence. dict and the evidence. It made favorable ap- The court of civil findings on several issues. peals is and that of the trial court reversed found injured, that Reese was he suffered is affirmed. total incapacity period for the from March 10, 1975, to June the jury STEAKLEY, Justice, dissenting. $1,239.00 medical, awarded him for his ther- apy and drug expenses covering period. of the Court I am the action dismayed It denied During all claims thereafter. judgment of the Court of reversing period Buning charged Dr. for his $185.00 holding Civil Appeals means of services, Moriarty charged Morton $972.00 question “was here in for his therapy treatments, drug bills reversibly neither nor harmful.” $1,229.00. amounted to $72.00 a total of ought positively We more confront sharp verdict drew a line between particular seriousness in period which, during evidence, professional attacks ethics Reese did not and could not work and the integrity opposing counsel. time that he was able to work did so. view, the unani- my and as held probabilities would Appeals, mous Court of Civil have reached its same conclusion from the improper, arguments were regard evidence without to Standard’s ar- support without in the evidence and gument. This is the evidence from the There can very their nature incurable. whole record. Two physicians released severity more hardly an accusation of Reese to return to a long work. There was charge that oppos- than the and seriousness gap stopped between the time seeing ing plot joined participated in a counsel any doctor and when he returned. He did in a two medical doctors combination with not see May January testimony and to to manufacture medical 5. He did see Bachynsky not provide not so as medical treatment needed June, 1976, to Moriarty’s Mr. November. impress jury inflated medical with therapy during treatments the peri- ceased charges. prej- conduct is calculated to Such od from January June against udice case of the client March, Reese went to Dr. Bachynsky see medi- lawyer charged, of the so 1976. It was Dr. Reese’s Bachynsky, doc- behalf; presented cal witnesses in his fur- tor, who symp- testified all of Reese’s thermore, founda- such accusations without toms only subjectively supported. It preva- all too magnify tion the record was Dr. Bachynsky who said thera- lay of the unjustified cynicism lent and py Buning prescribed treatments that Dr. legal profession. public respect to the with were not beneficial that he and also never make legal is a ethics to violation prescribed jury accepted them. The derogatory reference personal unfair or by denying of Mr. doctor Reese’s The Code of See also opposing counsel. expenses therapy claimed medical and by promulgated Responsibility incurred Professional after the end of the Court, governing total conduct of attor- incapacity period. Reese testified that view, he went neys. back to and harm my prejudice full-time work four or In Greenlee, to Reese from the arguments Citing under aside. it was said Wade review could by not have been removed Association, v. Texas Employers’ Insurance charges by withdrawal of the or admonition (1951), 150 Tex. that we S.W.2d of the court. But here the trial court in vice, judge by degree merely of the not responding objection upon repetition subject argument, matter of the lawyer of the accusation of a doctor “combi- arguments the distinction between only nation” said the accused counsel that are “curable” and those that are not reply closing could always application. been one of difficult disagree I supporting with the statement We stated in Texas Insurance in the majority opinion that “there was Haywood, Association v. evidence, direct as well as inferences from (1954), that the true test is evidence, supported which argu- degree prejudice flowing argu- ment.” my From examination of the rec- ment, e., argument, i. whether con- ord, complete there is a any absence of setting, reasonably proper sidered in its direct plot,” evidence of a “sham or or of a prejudice to the calculated to cause such Mafrige lawyerj-Bachynsky doc- [the [the opposing litigant by withdrawal tor]-Buning combination”; [another doctor] court, or counsel or an instruction or that Reese “drove a thousand doctors” both, probability could not eliminate the in reaching the Buning. office of Dr. In- that it verdict. resulted in an deed, Standard does not claim otherwise in addition, “We realize the Court noted that Application for Writ. But it asserts trial hotly in the course of a contested there permitting was evidence the inference lawyers apt, prone, ‘pull off Buning that Dr. help- was interested gloves’; of the lawyers but are officers ing build a case that Reese had suffered re- proper court and and ethical conduct injury; back and that this was at the re- quires the ex- there be limitations on quest of counsel for Reese. find no evi- go injec- may tent to which counsel support dence in the record to these claimed matters, prejudicial tion of inadmissible fact, proof inferences. Nor can if way whether of cross-examination fact, such is a going that Reese in to the argument.” by way witnesses or office of Dr. drove a thousand italics). (My 266 S.W.2d at doctors, Standard, be supplied, argued by as as a matter knowledge of common “to any heretofore considered This Court has Harris County juror.” against arguments accusatory of an nature under re- opposing counsel similar to those

I read the majority suggesting erudite Lumbermen’s view here. It was recited in hyperbole overrides sup- the absence of 404, 269 Lloyds Loper, porting precedential sup- evidence. The or party in portable that counsel for one writings upon value of the party majority the other questiona- relies would seem effect accused counsel for ble, e., Shakespeare, Milton, part i. suborning testimony Alexan- false Pope, Burns, der witness; Robert William Words- accusa- a medical that while the worth, Watts, Isaac Byron, Thomas provoc- positive tion was not in the most Percy, Taylor Coleridge, Samuel Alfred words, quite plain and imjport ative Tennyson, Thoreau, Henry David John the record. was an unfair deduction from Ruskin, Davidson, Rudyard Kip- and supra, that the Loper, in was assumed ling. I suggest writings our own more type of the arguments improper were point. in by admonition ordinarily that is incurable Notwithstanding, it was from the Bench. Gulf, Greenlee, Ry. C. & Co. v. S.F. of the concluded from an examination spoke 8 S.W. 129 this Court in all jury would in whole record that the terms of whether the remarks to the verdict, the same plainly prejudicial par- probability were so have rendered to the other jury argument. ty as to the demand that the verdict be set whatever the nature of this. The further ously In Cross v. Houston believed as to Belt & Terminal Co., Railway (Tex.Civ.App. found, however, injury was the e.), charged writ n. incapacity ref’d r. it was for the producing cause of total suing party to June period brief from March personal injuries allegedly by him sustained 1975; injury was not and that engaged “placed while in work himself in incapacity. producing any partial cause of every the hands of who attorneys these had wife was to and his testimony of Reese reason in the world from their financial suffered incapacity the effect interest everything in this case to do injury had not Reese as a result of they Jury can to hoodwink this lessened; pain symptoms his and that they time that shopping went for doctors affecting work inability engage they trying put have been in twisted The medical wit- not abated. his back had Upon objection evidence . . . .” to the ques- on of Reese was asked ness behalf argument said, I think Court “Counsel tion, “Doctor, you you if going to ask am you emphasis can draw from the testimo- can, probabili- reasonable medical based on ny.” thereupon The initial counsel contin- percentage give opinion as to ty, to by charging ued the opinion that Mr. Reese disability your “ [Wjhen attorneys . . . he hired these would be in most suffering from which just it question manufacturing projection probability a reasonable medical testimony, they any went out and hire disability.” The and future of his current they get things witnesses can say was, “I think based question answer to this you have heard from this witness stand type of based on the question on that Ap- here . . . .” The Court of Civil injury I doing to his prior work that he was peals nothing justify found in the record to lost, is not able or he say would that he has improper, and it was ruled sixty percent approximately to do inflammatory prejudicial imputing this.” able to do before work that perjury to the witnesses and subornation of Not- witness. There was no other medical counsel; perjury and, further, Reese and testimony of' withstanding the light was incurable and in the witness, the wife, medical and of their jury finding scarcely could have done incapacity jury in verdict said that the other than result in harm. We did not period of for a Reese continued writing acting Appli disturb this months, that he approximately three cation for Writ of Error. also See Southern incapacity any partial had not suffered Hubbard, Pacific Company v. testimony ad- no There was thereafter. 297 S.W.2d 120 of total period of time dressing specific Butler, Insurance Assoc. v. 287 S.W.2d 198 explanation of there is no incapacity, e.); (Tex.Civ.App.1956, writ n. r. ref’d Ste as and his wife Reese why believed Smith, phens (Tex.Civ. not believe injury, but did to the fact of App.1948, e.). writ ref’d n. r. them, doctor, duration as to the or their apparent arguments It is to me that resulting incapacity. question probably here in in an resulted noted, Also, jury found previously as verdict; self-serving and that the or incurred expended had majority dissertation of the on the harmless reasonably required medi- $1,239 sum of pointless. error received an rule is notwithstanding cal care. This was injury while at on about March work physical proof charges incurred 1975. Reese testified that this and his wife $1,458 and the therapy in the sum occur; did in fact but there is also evidence fees were charges incurred as doctors’ contrary finding the basis of which a $1,713. $255, total of or for a the sum of finding by could have been made. The record principally, There is no direct injury of the fact of rested charges and it is challenging these medical entirely, upon testimony if not of Reese wife, obvi- reasonable to conclude both of whom

probably influenced in the reduction of $474

by the accusation jury arguments plot” there was a “sham or a to “build

those up high. medical bills real higher bills, obviously medical got to be

hurt if got he has all of those medical bills. good

It will look jury.” front of a

I would affirm the of the Court

of Civil Appeals. JOHNSON, J.,

SAM D. joins in this dis-

sent. TURNER, Petitioner,

Robert A.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et

al., Respondents.

No. B-7747.

Supreme Court of Texas. 1979.

Rehearing July Denied

Case Details

Case Name: Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Reese

Court Name: Texas Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 6, 1979

Citation: 584 S.W.2d 835

Docket Number: B-7799

Court Abbreviation: Tex.