in his care and treatment of Mr. Chesser, didn’t you? A. In my deposition, yes. Q. And you rendered opinions that that care and treatment was a proximate case [sic] of his injury, didn’t you? A. That was one of the — one of the factors, yes. Q. Okay. So you’re — you’ve been a — an expert against — with respect to the care and treatment of Dr. Adedokyn. You also rendered opinions that Dr. Ferree was negligent in his care and treatment of Mr. Chesser at LifeCare, didn’t you? A. During the treatment at LifeCare, yes. Q. And you rendered the opinion that care and treatment was a proximate cause of his injury, didn’t you? A. Yes. Case law uniformly holds that such conelusory testimony constitutes “no evidence.” See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Merrell, 313 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>); City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d
holding evidence legally insufficient to support causation because patels opinions were conelusory and provided no evidence holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract holding evidence legally insufficient holding evidence legally insufficient to support causation because dr beyler may be qualified in fire research but his testimony in this case lacks objective evidencebased support for its conclusions holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement