Travelers Ins. Co. v. Smith

9 Citing cases

  1. Nat Union Fire Ins of v. Engelke

    828 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. App. 1992)

    Id. at 447. Travelers Insurance Company v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.), also contained facts similar to the present one. In Smith, an employee had to move and carry heavy containers during his job as a well treater.

  2. Texas Employers' Ins. v. Courtney

    709 S.W.2d 382 (Tex. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    (3) Monks v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, supra, where Justice Sellers found no probative evidence that a workman rotating automobile tires was doing work which was "strenuous or required overexertion"; (4) Travelers Insurance Company v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.), where Justice Ward in a case involving an oil field pumper found "no evidence of probative force in this record to establish that Mr. Smith sustained a strain in the course of his employment * * * "; (5) Whitaker v. General Insurance Company of America, supra, where Justice Williams in a case involving a service station employee said, "[t]here is no evidence of probative force in this record that Mr. Whitaker was required to perform work that required strenuous exertion or strain";

  3. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Dixon

    632 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. App. 1982)   Cited 2 times
    In Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Dixon, 632 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court found medical reports which contained reports and documents not generated by the doctors or their employees but produced from outside sources were not admissible. Most of the report which the court excluded in this case was a summary of notes and reports made by other doctors.

    561 S.W.2d at 791. Medical experts generally may rely on reports from the patient, see Travelers Insurance Co. v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e.); on professional reports, treatises, and textbooks, see Moore v. Grantham, 580 S.W.2d 142, 148 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1979) rev'd, 599 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. 1980); and on examinations, tests and diagnoses by other doctors, see Roth v. Law, 579 S.W.2d 949, 953 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref'd n. r. e.). See generally, McCormick Ray, Texas Law of Evidence § 1404 (3d ed. 1980).

  4. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Smith

    592 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    If, indeed, the testimony can be construed as indicating that Smith did not relate the facts of his injury to Dr. McGee, its probative value as showing a position on Smith's part inconsistent with his position at the trial is speculative at best, and we do not consider its exclusion to be such an error as to require a reversal. See Presley v. Royal Indemnity Ins. Co., 557 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1977, no writ); Travelers Insurance Company v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e.); and Monks v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 425 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1968, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Also excluded was this portion of Dr. Saxton's deposition:

  5. Cavazos v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York

    590 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    idence. For other cases which withheld recovery for accidental injury on the grounds that there was no evidence to support a finding that the claimant's stroke resulted, at least in part, from some type of overexertion or strain experienced during the course of employment, see Olson v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 477 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1972) (well logger abundant evidence of mental stimulus arising from a series of exasperating experiences on the job over a period of 19 days but no evidence of physical strain); Whitaker v. General Insurance Company of America, 461 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (filling station attendant evidence that claimant checked oil, wiped windshields and filled gas tanks); O'Dell v. Home Indemnity Company, 449 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (industrial oilfield mechanic evidence that claimant's work was normally strenuous but no showing of any unusual strain or overexertion on the day of death); Travelers Insurance Company v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (pumper and well treater no direct proof of heavy activity); Monks v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 425 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (automobile mechanic engaged in criss-crossing automobile tires evidence of criss-crossing, jacking and removing lug nuts but no evidence that such work was strenuous or that claimant had lifted any heavy objects); Bean v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, 349 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (iron cutter evidence that claimant hoisted a piece of steel but no evidence that piece of steel was unusually heavy or that work was heavy enough to cause strain or overexertion); General Accident, Fire Life Assurance Corporation v. Perry, 264 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App. Galveston 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (member of road maintenance crew principal duties involved building and repairing fences and operating tractor mover evidence that tractor had stuck in mud but no evidence that claimant made strenuous

  6. Miller v. Hardy

    564 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)   Cited 3 times

    ' " Travelers Insurance Company v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 at 543 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e.). This Court then cited Walker v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co., 131 Tex. 57, 112 S.W.2d 170 (1938); Bean v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, 349 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1961, writ ref'd n. r. e.).

  7. Minor v. Com. Ins. Newark N. J

    557 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    But it has been held repeatedly by the courts of this state that the former statements are admissible only to explain the opinion of the expert, and are otherwise within the realm of inadmissible hearsay. Travelers Insurance Company v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1967, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Newman v. Dodson, 61 Tex. 91 (1884); Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n. v. Morgan, 187 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1945, writ ref'd w. m.). We are not disposed to overturn that rule.

  8. Presley v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co.

    557 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    And Dr. Van Zandt's recitation of the history of the injury as reported to him by the plaintiff, although admissible to show the basis of the doctor's opinion as to the cause of plaintiff's problems, was not competent evidence that an injury in fact occurred on the date alleged. Travelers Insurance Company v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e); Bean v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, 349 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1961, writ ref'd n. r. e.). The first point of error is respectfully overruled.

  9. Texas Em. I. v. Butler

    483 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Civ. App. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    Such history was admissible only as explanation of a witness' opinion and its admission was properly so limited in this case. Travelers Insurance Company v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The history portion of the hospital record did not meet the requirement of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3737e, sec. 1(b) (1969) because Butler, the one with personal knowledge of the facts recited, and the one who furnished the information on the basis of which that entry was made, was not an employee or representative of the hospital.