green
Positive treatment
26.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1949 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1949
1987
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Madrid v. United States
“It has long been the law in Texas that a plaintiff in a medical negligence case must ‘prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegedly negligent act or omission was a proximate cause of the harm alleged.’” Guile, 422 F.3d at 225 (citing Archer v. Warren, 118 S.W.3d 779, 782 (Tex. App. 2003, no pet.); Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo, 909 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex. 1995); Kramer v. Lewisville Mem’l Hosp., 858 S.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Tex. 1993); Bowles v. Bourdon, 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. 1949)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
They suggest that a trial court's decision on the v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. adequacy of a report should be reviewed as a court would Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc.
Ins. levels would eliminate most drugs and many useful Co., 440 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex.1969); Bowles v. chemicals on which modern society depends heav- Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 785 (1949). ily) (citing James Wilson, Current Status of Terato- Newman testified, however, that based on the Has- logy, in HANDBOOK OF TERATOLOGY 60 sell/Horigan and other animal studies, he concluded (1977)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brian C. Simcoe v. Thomas Christopher and Catrina Christopher
Co. v. Ball, 96 Tex. 622 , 75 S.W. 4, 6 (Tex. 1903). 31 Minyard Food Stores, Inc. v. Goodman, 80 S.W.3d 573, 579 , 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 828 (Tex. 2002) (holding defamation was not in course and scope of employment as duties required employee to cooperate in investigation but not to lie); Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354, 360 , 14 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 391 (Tex. 1971) (holding truck driver was not in course of employment during social visit to his father). 32 Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782-83 (Tex. 1949) (affirming directed verdict against malpractice clai…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
E.g., Hart indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. doubts in the nonmovant’s favor, and eliminating any Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949). deference to the trial court’s decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vivek Goswami, M.D. and Austin Heart, PLLC v. Nancy Jo Rodriguez
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.g., Hart indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. doubts in the nonmovant’s favor, and eliminating any Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949). deference to the trial court’s decision.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stephen C. Walters, D.D.S. Arlington Oral Surgery, P.A. And Party Doing Business as Arlington Oral Surgery v. Trina Hudoba, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Elizabeth Taylor
Duff v. Yelin, 751 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1988) (citing Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex. 1965) and Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1, 5 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stephen C. Walters, D.D.S. Arlington Oral Surgery, P.A. And Party Doing Business as Arlington Oral Surgery v. Trina Hudoba, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Elizabeth Taylor
Duff v. Yelin , 751 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1988) (citing Hart v. Van Zandt , 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex. 1965) and Bowles v. Bourdon , 148 Tex. 1, 5 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re McAllen Medical Center, Inc.
(2×)
Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949) ("It is definitely settled with us that a patient has no cause of action against his doctor for malpractice, either in diagnosis or recognized treatment, unless he proves by a doctor of the same school of practice as the defendant: (1) that the diagnosis or treatment complained of was such as to constitute negligence and (2) that it was a proximate cause of the patient's injuries."). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Springer v. Johnson
The expert opinion of a physician, Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949), qualified to testify under Texas Rule of Evidence 702; 6 Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148, 151-52 (Tex.1996), has long been required in suits involving health care liability claims.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re McAllen Medical Center, Inc., D/B/A McAllen Medical Center and Universal Health Services, Inc.
Transitional Care Ctrs . of Tex. , Inc. v. Palacios , 46 S.W.3d 873, 877 ( Tex. 2001). [4] Bowles v. Bourdon , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. 1949) (“It is definitely settled with us that a patient has no cause of action against his doctor for malpractice, either in diagnosis or recognized treatment, unless he proves by a doctor of the same school of practice as the defendant: (1) that the diagnosis or treatment complained of was such as to constitute negligence and (2) that it was a proximate cause of the patient’s injuries.”). [5] In re Methodist Healthcare Sys. of San Antonio, Ltd. , No. 0…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Lowe, M.D. v. Mary Hernandez
Dr. Lowe asserts that the assessment of a patient’s ability to return to work and function, the preparation of the documents required for that assessment and, as phrased by Dr. Lowe, “what happens to a patient as a result of that medical assessment and submission of documentation are matters outside the common knowledge of the lay public that require expert medical testimony.” For these assertions Dr. Lowe cites Hart v. Van Zandt , 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex. 1965) (stating that when “determining negligence in a case . . . which concerns the highly specialized art of treating disease, th…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Farris
Duff v. Yelin, 751 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1988) (citing Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1, 5 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Debra Thomas and Stan Thomas v. Gearald Farris, Individually and D/B/A Farris Chiropractic Clinic
Duff v. Yelin , 751 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1988) (citing Hart v. Van Zandt , 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex. 1965); Bowles v. Bourdon , 148 Tex. 1, 5 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guile v. USA
Liability of Dr. Cruz It has long been the law in Texas that a plaintiff in a medical negligence case must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegedly negligent act or omission was a proximate cause of the harm alleged.” See, e.g., Archer v. Warren, 118 S.W.3d 779, 782 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003); Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo, 909 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex. 1995); Kramer v. Lewisville Mem’l Hosp., 858 S.W.2d 397 , 399–400 (Tex. 1993); Bowles v. Bourdon, 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. 1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley Guile, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Emiko Guile and All Her Wrongful Death Beneficiaries v. United States of America, Bradley Guile, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Emiko Guile and All Her Wrongful Death Beneficiaries, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. United States of America, United States of America, Cristina Cruz, Md, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
Liability of Dr. Cruz 9 It has long been the law in Texas that a plaintiff in a medical negligence case must "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegedly negligent act or omission was a proximate cause of the harm alleged." See, e.g., Archer v. Warren, 118 S.W.3d 779, 782 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003); Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo, 909 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex.1995); Kramer v. Lewisville Mem'l Hosp., 858 S.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Tex.1993); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guile v. United States
Liability of Dr. Cruz It has long been the law in Texas that a plaintiff in a medical negligence case must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegedly negligent act or omission was a proximate cause of the harm alleged.” See, e.g., Archer v. Warren, 118 S.W.3d 779, 782 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003); Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo, 909 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex.1995); Kramer v. Lewisville Mem’l Hosp., 858 S.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Tex.1993); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moreno v. M.V.
Hart, 399 S.W.2d at 792 ; Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1, 5 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Keller v. Wilson
(2×)
Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782-83 (1949) (affirming directed verdict against malpractice claim as inadequate expert testimony from doctor of same school or practice as defendant rendered proof legally insufficient). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hutchinson v. Montemayor
See, e.g., Lenger v. Physician’s General Hospital, Inc., 455 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex.1970); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 785 (Tex.1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sue Tuley v. Teresa Ortiz De Ruiz as of the Estate of Dr. Francisco Aurelio Ruiz-Ortiz
Wendenburg v. Williams , 784 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (citing Bowles v. Bourdon , 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marathon Electric Manufacturing Corporation v. Claudine Schiller, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Manfred Schiller
Duff v. Yelin , 751 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1988) (citing Hart v. Van Zandt , 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex. 1965); Bowles v. Bourdon , 148 Tex. 1, 5 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quijano v. United States
Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160, 165-66 (Tex. *568 1977); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949); Mills, 995 S.W.2d at 268 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patriacca v. Frost
Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Heather Patriacca v. Scot Frost, MD
Bowles v. Bourdon , 147 Tex. 608 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hightower v. Saxton
E.g., Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.1966); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex.1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Palacios
E.g., Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rehabilitative Care Systems of America v. Davis
Bowles v. Bour-don, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949); Mills, 995 S.W.2d at 268 ; Tilotta v. Goodall, 752 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mills v. Angel
Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160, 165-66 (Tex.1977); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949); Huff, 957 S.W.2d at 101 ; LaCroix, 947 S.W.2d at 950 . 19 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner
(2×)
Co., 440 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex.1969); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 785 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Denton Regional Medical Center v. LaCroix
See Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160, 165-66 (Tex.1977); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949); Harle v. Krchnak, 422 S.W.2d 810, 814-15 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (op. on reh’g).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert A. Ersek, M.D. v. Cheri Lynn Koester and Robert L. Koester
Duff v. Yelin , 751 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1988), citing Hart v. Van Zandt , 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex. 1965); Bowles v. Bourdon , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. 1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor Ex Rel. Palmer v. Dallas County Hospital District
Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949); Hall v. Tomball Nursing Center, Inc., 926 S.W.2d 617, 620 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Bettinger
(2×)
This requirement was enunciated in Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779 (1949), when the court stated: "It is definitely settled with us that a patient has no cause of action against his doctor for malpractice ... unless he proves by a doctor of the same school of practice as the defendant...." Id. at 782.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. Rogers
Hosp., 455 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex.1970); Insurance Co. of North Am. v. Myers, 411 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Tex.1966); Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792-93 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949); McMillin v. L.D.L.R., 645 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nail v. Laros
Absent testimony by Dr. Laros to address the allegation, see, e.g., rule 166a(c), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Anderson v. Snider, 808 S.W.2d at 55 , the testimony must be from a doctor of the same school of practice as Dr. Laros, Williams v. Bennett, 610 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex.1980); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949), unless it can be shown that the specialized art of treating the infection from an implant is common to, and equally recognized and developed in, all fields of practice.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
David R. Rodriguez v. Pacificare of Texas, Inc., Michael Heistand, M.D.
See Ayers v. United States, 750 F.2d 449, 453 (5th Cir.1985); Gonzalez v. United States, 600 F.Supp. 1390, 1393 (W.D.Tex.1985); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. Pacificare of Texas, Inc.
See Ayers v. United States, 750 F.2d 449, 453 (5th Cir.1985); Gonzalez v. United States, 600 F.Supp. 1390, 1393 (W.D.Tex.1985); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pennington v. Brock
(2×)
Wendenburg, M.D. v. Williams, 784 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied), citing Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kalteyer v. Sneed
The parties agree that under Texas law “a patient has no cause of action against his doctor for malpractice, either in diagnosis or treatment, unless he proves by a doctor of the same school of practice as the defendant that the diagnosis or treatment complained of was negligence and that it was a proximate cause of the patient’s injuries.” Williams v. Bennett, 610 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex.1980); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alicean Kalteyer and Charles F. Kalteyer v. Dennis R. Sneed, M.D.
The parties agree that under Texas law "a patient has no cause of action against his doctor for malpractice, either in diagnosis or treatment, unless he proves by a doctor of the same school of practice as the defendant that the diagnosis or treatment complained of was negligence and that it was a proximate cause of the patient's injuries." Williams v. Bennett , 610 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex. 1980); Bowles v. Bourdon , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. 1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arguello v. Gutzman
(2×)
See Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160, 165-66 (Tex.1977); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marling v. Maillard
See Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 797 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wisenbarger v. Gonzales Warm Springs Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc.
See Swartout v. Holt, 272 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1954, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (jury found that death of child as a result of allergic reaction to ether was unavoidable accident when doctors were not told of allergy prior to surgery); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949) (contracture of plaintiff’s hand could have been caused by injury that broke plaintiff’s elbow rather than by any negligence in treating the break); H.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wendenburg v. Williams
Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metot v. Danielson
(2×)
Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shook v. Herman
TEX.R.CIV.P. 166a(e); Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d at 792 ; Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1, 4 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wiggins v. Cameron
Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 797 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duff v. Yelin
(2×)
Hart v. Van Zandt, 399 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.1965); Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1, 5 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hope v. Seahorse, Inc.
In Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 782 (1949) the Texas Supreme Court stated: It is definitely settled with us that a patient has no cause of action against his doctor for malpractice, either in diagnosis or recognized treatment, unless he proves by a doctor of the same school of practice as the defendant: (1) that the diagnosis or treatment complained of was such as to constitute negligence and (2) that it was a proximate cause of the patient’s injuries. 14.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NARDIS SPORTSWEAR
v.
SIMMONS
v.
SIMMONS
E. G. Moseley, of Dallas, and Graves & Dougherty and Ireland Graves, all of Austin, for petitioner., Worsham, Worsham & Riley and Joseph Irion Worsham, all of Dallas, for respondent.
Sharp.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
SHARP, Justice.
Motions for rehearing were filed in this cause, and after considering same the original judgment heretofore entered in this cause is reformed to read as follows:
It having been made known' to this - Court by a certificate of the Clerk of the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, that petitioner has paid into the registry of that court the sum of $75,000 in cash, as consideration for the land- and premises involved in the suit, this cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to render judgment in favor of petitioner for title and possession of the land and premises involved in this suit, and to render judgment in favor of respondent for the said sum of $75,000 now so held in the registry of that court; and the suggestion having been made by respondent’s attorney in the Court of Civil Appeals, as well as here, that pending the appeal in this case the respondent has died, it is further ordered that pursuant tcv Rule 369-a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, such judgment shall be rendered as if all the parties interested therein were living, and it shall have the same force and effect as if rendered in the lifetime -of all the parties thereto; and all costs shall be taxed against the respondent. The trial court shall enter all necessary orders to consummate the judgment herein rendered.
Having reformed the judgment as above indicated,, the motions for rehearing are overruled.