Gonzalez v. McAllen Medical Center, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-0939.,03-0939. |
| Citation | 195 S.W.3d 680 |
| Parties | Oscar GONZALEZ, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Enrique Gonzalez, Emma Gonzalez, Enrique Gonzalez, Jr., Armando Gonzalez, Ricardo Gonzalez, and Hector Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. McALLEN MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and Jose I. Igoa, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Levon G. Hovnatanian, Martin Disiere Jefferson & Wisdom, L.L.P., John M. O'Quinn, O'Quinn Laminack & Pirtle, Houston, Jaime A. Gonzalez, Gonzalez & Associates, McAllen, David W. Holman, Godwin Pappas Langley Ronquillo, LLP, Robert Alan York, Godwin Gruber, LLP, Benjamin L. Hall III, The Hall Law Firm, and Holly Melissa Wheeler, Houston, for Petitioners.
Richard A. Sheehy, Sheehy, Serpe & ware, P.C., Houston, Steven M. Gonzalez, Gonzales Gaytan Garza & Castillo, LLP, McAllen, Robert B. Dubose, Robert M. Roach Jr., Sean Reed Cox, Cook & Roach, L.L.P., Houston, Christopher C. Franz, The Franz Law Firm, McAllen, Charles E. Sweetman, Sweetman & Wise, Brownsville, for Respondents.
A jury rejected the medical negligence claims brought by the family of Enrique Gonzalez against McAllen Medical Center and Dr. Jose Igoa. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of several jury findings. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals rejected these points in a memorandum opinion, concluding in a single sentence that the evidence was factually sufficient without stating any reason why. 2003 WL 21283132, (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003) (mem.op.). We agree with the plaintiffs that they are entitled to more than this, and thus reverse.
Enrique Gonzalez was voluntarily admitted to the psychiatric ward of McAllen Medical Center suffering from Alzheimer's disease. While there, another patient hit him in the face, causing him to fall and break his hip. His family sued the hospital and his treating physician. After a five-week trial, the jury answered all six liability questions in favor of the defendants.
The Gonzalez family appealed, challenging in six points the factual sufficiency of the jury's liability findings, and in a seventh the legal sufficiency of a finding that Gonzalez did not suffer a "serious, permanent, and disabling injury." The court of appeals recited the standard of review for factual sufficiency, and then concluded summarily:
Considering the record in its entirety, we hold that appellants' factual sufficiency challenge fails because the jury's verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. We overrule appellants' first six issues.1
When the issues in a case are settled, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require courts of appeals to "write a brief memorandum opinion no longer than necessary to advise the parties of the court's decision and the basic reasons for it." TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. The opinion here does not comply with this rule because, while it advises the plaintiffs of the court's decision, it fails to articulate any reason for it.
A court of appeals must "detail the evidence . . . and clearly state why the jury's finding is factually insufficient" when reversing a jury verdict, but need not do so when affirming a jury verdict. Compare Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex.1986), with Ellis County State Bank v. Keever, 888 S.W.2d 790, 794 (Tex.1994); see also Citizens Nat'l Bank in Waxahachie v. Scott, 195 S.W.3d 94 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (). Thus, neither the appellate rules nor this Court require detailed recitations of the evidence when a factual sufficiency complaint is overruled. But merely stating that it is overruled does not count as providing the "basic reasons" for that decision.
Rule 47 does not attempt to prescribe the appropriate contents of every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Columbia Medical Center
... ... See TEX. CONST. art. I, § 15, art. V, § 10; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Seale, 904 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1995, no writ) (recognizing that a jury's ... See Scott, 195 S.W.3d at 96; Gonzalez v. McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 195 S.W.3d 680, ... 290 S.W.3d 213 ... 682 (Tex.2006) (noting that ... ...
-
Critical Path Res., Inc. v. Cuevas ex rel. Estate
...outweighs the evidence in support of the verdict; we need not do so when affirming a jury’s verdict. Gonzalez v. McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 195 S.W.3d 680, 681 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish a duty, a breach of that duty, and damages pro......
-
Stage Stores, Inc. v. Gunnerson
...to review the reasonableness of that rejection, but a failure to explain can result in reversal.").35 Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.36 195 S.W.3d 680, 681 (Tex.2006).37 Id.38 Id.39 Id. at 682. In a similar case, the Court concluded that a court of appeals violated Rule 47.4 when its entire justifica......
-
Brazos Contractors Dev., Inc. v. Jefferson
...or substitute our judgment for that of the jury, even if the evidence would support a different result. Gonzalez v. McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. , 195 S.W.3d 680, 681 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). The amount of evidence necessary to affirm a judgment is far less than the amount necessary to reverse.......
-
CHAPTER 2 Standards of Review and Scope of Review
...Civ. App. Prac. § 44:10 (2d ed., Westlaw, database updated Dec. 2012) (citations omitted).[378] Gonzalez v. McAllen Med. Center, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 680, 681 (Tex. 2006); see also Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986) (Intermediate courts overruling judgments on factual suffi......