108 S.W.2d 864 | Tex. App. | 1937
Appellee is a resident of Fisher county and, while employed by the Uvalde Construction Company in September, 1934, received an injury compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art.
It has now been definitely determined that a court upon setting aside a compromise settlement agreement has no jurisdiction to award compensation and that after the court has set such compromise settlement aside the claimant is relegated to the board for further proceedings and *866
relief. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hilton,
We shall now consider whether or not the court was authorized to overrule the plea of privilege on the theory that fraud was committed in Fisher county in procuring the compromise settlement agreement. There is no evidence of representations, fraudulent or otherwise, relied upon as inducing Cole to enter into the compromise agreement, unless it be shown by the following testimony of the doctor who treated him for his injuries.
"Q. Did he [Cole] ask your suggestion and advice about it? A. He asked my opinion, yes sir.
"Q. Did you tell him that you thought he would be able to go back to work in a month? A. That's right. I told him I thought that would be a fair settlement."
In connection with the above quotation from the testimony, we desire to point out that the doctor testified he had attended and treated Mr. Cole for about 40 days after his accidental injuries on the 4th of September; that on the day of the execution of the agreement some person who is not identified in the record, but who, for the purpose of this opinion, we will assume to be the adjuster for the insurance company, came with Mr. Cole to the doctor's office; that said two visitors stayed in the doctor's office for thirty or forty minutes; that the question of settlement was discussed; that Cole participated in such discussion. The doctor testified further that no misrepresentations were made to Cole by any one; that there was just a free open discussion; that Cole signed the settlement agreement, understanding that he was making a final settlement, and agreed to accept the sum of $58.50. This testimony is not disputed.
Unless such testimony is sufficient to authorize a finding that fraud in procuring the settlement agreement was perpetrated upon Cole in Fisher county, there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.
We are of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of fraud perpetrated in said county.
The evidence quoted came from appellee's witness, the doctor in question. He was employed by appellant to attend to appellee after his injuries. For the purpose of this opinion we assume that he was the agent of appellant. He was also the family physician of appellee. Appellee's said witness testified without contradiction that the settlement agreement was arrived at after a free open discussion of the matter; that appellee understood he was making a settlement, and that when he signed the release "that was the end of it."
The statement of the doctor, we think, cannot be fairly construed as anything more than an expression of an honest opinion that appellee would be able to work in a month. Appellee's witness, the doctor, said that appellee asked for his opinion, and the doctor told appellee what he, the doctor, thought; that is, that the doctor "thought" appellee would be able to go back to work in a month and "thought" the amount agreed upon would be a fair settlement. As we understand appellee's brief, there was and is no contention that the doctor's expression of his opinion was intentionally false, dishonest, or fraudulent, nor is it contended that the doctor's statement was anything further than the requested expression of his honest opinion. If there be any contention to the contrary, we think it finds no support in the evidence. Be the opinion honest or otherwise, before it could be a possible basis for a finding that a fraud was perpetrated, the doctor's statement must be shown to have been false. It is not shown to have been incorrect, unless it be shown by the evidence that after the injury the appellee became insane. We do not believe that proof that a person is sane prior to an accident and that at some time after the accident he becomes insane, in the absence of evidence of some character, opinion or otherwise, that the accident was the cause of the insanity, constitutes proof that the insanity is a result of the accident. There was, therefore, no proof that the doctor's statement to *867 appellee at the time of the discussion of the settlement agreement and prior to its execution was incorrect. Certainly before the doctor's statement can be held to be legally fraudulent it must be shown to have been a statement of something more than an honest opinion and his statement must be shown to have been false. In our opinion, the doctor's statement is not shown to have been other than the expression of an honest opinion not relating to a then existing fact, and, furthermore, it is not shown to have been either incorrect or false.
The case of Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Huyett (Tex.Civ.App.)
"* * * the courts generally recognize the abstract rule that representations by the releasee's physician as to the future results of the injuries, such as the time necessary for or likelihood of recovery, if made in good faith, are mere expressions of opinion and not representations of past or present facts, and, though they prove not to be true, will not afford ground for avoiding a release." 23 R.C.L. § 21, p. 392.
"As a general rule, a false statement by a physician as to a patient's present condition is treated as a statement of fact, while one made as to his future condition is essentially an expression of opinion or prediction as to the future." 36 Tex.Jur. § 13, p. 811.
"A representation which is expressed and understood as nothing more than a statement of opinion cannot constitute fraud, and this is especially true where the opinion expressed is honestly entertained." 26 C.J. § 20, p. 1079.
See Quebe v. Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co.,
In Carroll v. United Rys. Co.,
A portion of appellee's brief is devoted to a contention that the judgment should be sustained because of appellee's mental incapacity. We do not deem proof of appellee's incapacity as directly material on the question of venue. Of course, the release may be set aside if appellee was *868 mentally incompetent at the time of the execution of such release, but such proof has no direct reference to the question of venue here involved. We think, if it has any bearing upon the question of venue, that it might be considered by the court or jury in determining whether or not as a matter of fact appellee did rely upon the alleged representations of appellant's physician, but the question of his mental incapacity can have no controlling effect upon the matters herein discussed.
For the reasons stated, we feel constrained to reverse the judgment of the district court. The order appealed from is set aside, the plea of privilege sustained, and the cause remanded with instructions to change the venue to Dallas county.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instructions.