Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Sherwood Lane Associates v. O'NEILL

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)

Decided January 2, 1990No. 01-89-00720-CVPublished

1ConcurrenceDunn, Justice

I concur in the result. The majority opinion, however, implies that the respon*946dent had no discretion to appoint an expert other than Covert. Under Tex.R.Civ.P. 167a, the relator does not have an absolute right to a physician of his own choosing. Employees Mut. Casualty Co. v. Street, 707 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1986, orig. proceeding). However, unless a party has a valid objection to the opposing party’s selection, the examination should be conducted by physicians of the opposing party’s choosing. Id. (quoting Liechty v. Terrill Trucking Co., 53 F.R.D. 590, 591 (E.D.Tenn.1971)).…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Liechty v. Terrill Trucking Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1971
  2. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. StreetCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API