the incubation period the more fatal tetanus is likely to be. Avery allocated about a one-third risk that Lerma’s decaying teeth caused the tetanus. Regarding Lerma’s diabetic condition, Avery stated there was a ten to twenty percent risk associated with getting tetanus from diabetes. Further, Avery explained that not only was he unable to eliminate the above causes, but also he was unable to eliminate any other potential infections caused by an unidentified source. Dr. Mulder was unable to prove that it was a reasonable probability that Lerma contracted tetanus from the May 13th wound in light of the incubation period and in light of numerous other existing probable causes for the infection. See Hernandez v. Altenberg, 904 S.W.2d 734, 739 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Mulder’s reasoning that Lerma’s May 13th
holding that expert medical testimony was not necessary to establish negligence where surgeon left a needle in the patients body but stating that proof of proximate cause requires some expert testimony in medical malpractice cases holding expert testimony was based on reasonable medical probability where there were multiple possible causes and expert testified that one cause was more probable than the others holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial holding that using the opinions of an expert that were not testified to during trial which were irrelevant and solely used to destroy the credibility of the expert was not admissible holding expert testimony provided no evidence as to causation since testimony was not based upon reasonable medical probability