The plaintiff in a malicious prosecution case has the burden of proving seven essential elements: (1) the commencement of a criminal prosecution against him, (2) which was caused by the defendant or through his aid or cooperation, (3) which terminated in favor of the plaintiff by acquittal, (4) that the plaintiff was not guilty of the charge brought against him, (5) that no probable cause existed for the filing of the charge, (6) that it was done with malice, and (7) that the plaintiff was thereby damaged. Stewart v. Control Data Corporation, 580 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1979, no writ). There is evidence that the Plaintiff pled nolo contendere to charges contributed to by the reports given by the doctor. There is no evidence of any final determination.
Brown v. Parrata Sales, Inc., 521 S.W.2d 359 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1975, no writ). Probable cause existed if, from the facts known to him at the time of the communication, Beach had reasonable grounds to believe and did believe Fisher was guilty of the offense charged. Ramsey v. Arrott, 64 Tex. 320 (1885); Stewart v. Control Data Corp., 580 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1979, no writ); Terk v. Deaton, 555 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1977, no writ). The question of probable cause does not depend on the guilt or innocence of Fisher, and acquittal is not evidence of lack of probable cause. Parker, 463 S.W.2d at 500; Moran Utilities v.Childs, 392 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.).