Carrasco v. Goatcher
| Decision Date | 14 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 7030,7030 |
| Citation | 623 S.W.2d 769 |
| Parties | Eva R. CARRASCO, Appellant, v. Joann H. GOATCHER, M. D., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Pearson, Warach & Wales, Robert B. Wales, El Paso, for appellant.
Peticolas, Luscombe, Stephens & Windle, W. C. Peticolas and J. Morgan Broaddus, III, El Paso, for appellee.
Before WARD, OSBORN and SCHULTE, JJ.
This is a medical malpractice case in which the Defendant doctor received a favorable jury verdict in the trial Court below and from which the Plaintiff patient appeals. The parties will be referred to as they were in the trial Court. Plaintiff urges two points of error, the first concerning venue and the second, factual insufficiency. We affirm.
Plaintiff's first point avers that the trial Court erred in overruling its application for change of venue. The application essentially asserted that a climate of bias and prejudice obtained in favor of the Defendant doctor in Culberson County.
Rule 257, Tex.R.Civ.P., provides in substance that a change of venue may be granted upon application of either party, supported by his own affidavit and the affidavit of at least three credible persons, residents of the county in which suit is pending for certain specified causes as set forth therein.
The granting or refusing of an application for change of venue will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Glover v. Moore, 544 S.W.2d 777 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1976, no writ); Henson v. Tom, 473 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Before the trial Court can be shown to have abused its discretion, it must first be vested with discretion.
Broad discretion vests when the application is duly made and properly contested. Robertson v. Robertson, 382 S.W.2d 945 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
In the case before us, the application for change of venue was not duly made in that Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Rule 257. The only affidavits attached were those of the Plaintiff herself and that of her granddaughter, not a resident of the county in which suit was pending.
On the other hand, the Defendant filed its contest to the application, attaching her affidavits as well as those of four other residents of the county, all to the effect that Plaintiff could obtain a fair and impartial trial in Culberson County.
Plaintiff urges that the absence of such affidavits on its part further illustrates the bias and prejudice complained of. In Russell v. Russell, 79 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1934, writ ref'd), the Court stated in regard to Article 2170, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. (Vernon 1925), the predecessor to Rule 257, that it could envision such a case but found no proof in the case there before it to correlate with such a contention.
The burden of proof that the Plaintiff could not secure a fair and impartial trial in Culberson County was on the Plaintiff. Henson v. Tom, supra. This record does not reveal any evidence offered or presented by the Plaintiff to satisfy such burden.
We determine that the trial Court correctly overruled said application and that such ruling was not an abuse of discretion. Point of Error Number One is overruled.
Plaintiff's second point avers that the trial Court erred in granting judgment upon a verdict which was rendered against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. The finding here under attack is that the Defendant doctor did not fail to cleanse the leg before applying the cast.
The special issue involved on this point, inquired of the jury:
"Do you find ... that Defendant ... failed to cleanse leg before applying cast?"
To this question the jury answered, "No".
Interpreted, the jury's answer is a failure or refusal by the jury to find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant doctor failed to cleanse the Plaintiff's leg before applying the cast. In other words, Plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving the fact. C. & R. Transport, Inc. v. Campbell, 406 S.W.2d 191, 194 (Tex.1966).
The wording of the point suggests the principle stated in Chemical Cleaning, Inc. v. Chemical Cleaning and Equipment Service, Inc., 462 S.W.2d 276 (Tex.1970), to the effect that a point of error which states that the trial Court erred in rendering judgment on a verdict because of the state of the evidence-if it is adequate for any purpose-is only a "no evidence" point. Yet the argument made by the Plaintiff under the point deals with the finding as being against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. In accordance with an earlier Supreme Court ruling, we will consider the great weight point because of the substance of the argument. Fambrough v. Wagley, 140 Tex. 577, 169 S.W.2d 478 (1943).
In reviewing factual insufficiency points, the Court of Appeals will consider all of the evidence in the record that is relevant to the fact being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Heritage Resources, Inc.
...of the jury. If there is sufficient competent evidence of probative force to support the finding, it must be sustained. Carrasco v. Goatcher, 623 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1981, no writ). It is not within the province of this Court to interfere with the jury's resolution of conflic......
-
Bates v. Tesar
...is for the fact finder to determine the weight to be given to the testimony and to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. Carrasco v. Goatcher, 623 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1981, no writ). The finding should be sustained if there is some probative evidence to support it and provi......
-
ABRAXAS PETROLEUM v. HORNBURG, 08-98-00286-CV
...determine the weight to be given to the testimony and to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. Leibman, 981 S.W.2d at 429; Carrasco v. Goatcher, 623 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1981, no writ). The jury's finding should be sustained if there is some probative evidence to support it a......
-
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center v. Apodaca
...831 S.W.2d at 81. If there is sufficient competent evidence of probative force to support the finding, it must be sustained. Carrasco v. Goatcher, 623 S.W.2d 769 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1981, no Appellee asserts that the deposition and trial testimony of Dr. Lakho, the deposition testimony of Dr......