There was no objection or challenge by appellant to any of these statements by Dr. Constant. It was undisputed that Ochoa was not malingering but wanted to get well. It is said that where a patient is interested mainly in getting well there is little motive for the giving of false or questionable case history to the doctor. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Taylor, 376 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1964); Ft. Worth Denver Railway Company v. Coffman, 397 S.W.2d 544 (Tex.Civ.App. — Ft. Worth 1965), and cases cited; Liberty Insurance Company of Texas v. Land, 397 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Civ.App. — Ft. Worth 1965). Appellant produced no evidence nor did it attempt to contradict any of the historical information or statements of past matters given by appellee to the doctor which were related by the doctor's testimony.
" Appellee relies primarily on the following cases: Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Shifflette, 91 S.W.2d 787 (Dallas 1936, wr. dism.); Carter v. Travelers Ins. Co., 132 Tex. 288, 120 S.W.2d 581 (1938); Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Hatcher, 365 S.W.2d 641 (Waco 1963, writ. ref. n.r.e.); Liberty Insurance Company of Texas v. Land, 397 S.W.2d 900 (Ft. Worth, writ. ref. n.r.e.); and Pan-American Fire Casualty Company v. Reed, 436 S.W.2d 561 (Amarillo, writ. ref. n.r.e.). Without specifically reviewing each case, it is our view that they each, in general, point out the difficulty with which the appellee is faced here. In each case there was direct proof by other witnesses of the heavy activity of the workman while in the course of employment producing the strain or over-exertion which produced the heart attack or other injury, with the exception of the last cited case, where the circumstantial evidence practically amounted to direct proof.
We do not think this case falls within the cases relied upon, but rather that it falls within the rule above announced. In Liberty Insurance Company of Texas v. Land, 397 S.W.2d 900, the testimony of Dr. Trimble was permitted when questioned on the basis that he was an examining doctor and not a treating doctor; yet the evidence shows that Dr. Trimble was the surgeon who Operated on and treated Land for perforation of the colon, from which he later died. And in Texas Employers' Ins. Ann'n v. Morgan, 187 S.W.2d 603 (wr. ref., w.m.) the court simply stated that the doctor did give him treatment.
Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Noel, 269 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Civ.App., 1954, ref., n.r.e.). See also Liberty Insurance Company of Texas v. Land, 397 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Civ.App., 1965, ref., n.r.e.). In determining whether the statements made by Lindley to his son should be admitted as res gestae the court must, in a hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment, view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; must resolve all reasonable doubts in plaintiff's favor and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor.