# Brown v. Bettinger

> Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · September 8, 1994 · 882 S.W.2d 953

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778719

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel M. BROWN and Sharon Brown, Individually and as Next Friend of Michael David Hobbs, Appellants, v. Jerry BETTINGER, M.D., Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
- **Decided:** September 8, 1994
- **Citations:** 882 S.W.2d 953; 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 2248; 1994 WL 484362
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Walker
- **Judges:** Walker, Brookshire, Burgess
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778719

## Opinion text

WALKER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the reversal and remand of this cause and would affirm summary judgment.
Appellants have failed to address all possible grounds upon which the trial court may have granted summary judgment. In Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex.1989), our Texas Supreme Court held that when a trial court’s order granting summary judgment does not specify the ground or grounds relied upon for its ruling, summary judgment will be affirmed on appeal if any of the theories advanced are meritorious. This Ninth Court of Appeals recognized that rule in Netterville v. Interfirst Bank, 718 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1986, no writ). When an order granting summary judgment does not specify the particular grounds the trial court sustained, on appeal, the summary judgment opponent must defeat each summary judgment ground urged by the movant, otherwise the appellate court must uphold the summary judgment on any ground that finds support. Goston v. Hutchison, 853 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ), citing Carr, 776 S.W.2d at 569 .
In the present case, the Trial Court’s Order granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Bettinger did not specify the grounds upon which the summary judgment was based. The Browns’ sole point of error is limited to the contention that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment because there was controverting expert testimony relating to the applicable standard of care. Proximate cause is one of the essential elements of plaintiffs medical malpractice cause of action. Appellants do not address the possibility that the trial court may have found that appellants failed to establish proximate cause, an essential element of their cause of action. Where summary judgment may have been based on a ground not specifically challenged by the appellant, the reviewing court is required to let the judgment stand, if there is no general assignment of error that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. TEC Electric Company v. AMFAC Distribution Corporation, 581 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1979, no writ).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778719. Public record. Not legal advice.