Bramlett v. Phillips
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 1319
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Medical malpractice case; jury awarded $11M actual and $3M exemplary to Bramletts and Fullers against Dr. Phillips in 2005.
- Trial court refused to apply the 11.02(a) cap; entered final judgment of $12,168,364.50 with 6.5% postjudgment interest.
- Texas Supreme Court reversed on interrelationship of 11.02(a) cap and 11.02(c) Stowers exception, remanding for a cap-consistent judgment.
- Supreme Court remand instructed the trial court to apply the cap and render a judgment consistent with its opinion.
- After remand, Bramletts sought to add insurer/adjuster parties and claimed trial court erred by not including Stowers findings; trial court issued a new judgment in 2009.
- This 2009 judgment vacated the 2005 judgment, recalculated damages, changed postjudgment interest rate/date, and reserved 11.02(c) claims for another case; Bramletts appeal this judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court exceed its remand authority by vacating the 2005 judgment? | Bramletts: court was required to apply cap; recitations from 2005 not necessary. | Phillips: limited remand scope allowed only cap application, not vacation. | Yes; court exceeded limited remand authority by vacating. |
| Did the recalculation of damages comply with the Supreme Court’s mandate? | Bramletts: recalculation must follow cap and correct dates; include prejudgment offsets. | Phillips: recalculation within remand scope; MDJ math acceptable. | No; damages recalculation failed to adhere to cap/date framework and was inadequately explained. |
| Should postjudgment interest begin from the date of the original judgment or the remand judgment? | Bramletts: interest accrues from 2005 judgment date. | Phillips: interest from new judgment date. | From the date of the original 2005 judgment. |
| Did the court properly reserve or handle any Stowers/11.02(c) issues for another case? | Bramletts: Stowers facts should have been included; insurer claim reserved. | Phillips: Stowers claim reserved for separate litigation; no error. | Reserved as appropriate; no reversible error on that point. |
| Did the court err in granting relief beyond the remand mandate by vacating the 2005 judgment? | Bramletts: relief within mandate; 2005 judgment should stand or be properly modified. | Phillips: release of 2005 judgment not required; remand limited. | Yes; vacating exceeded scope and was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Bramlett, 288 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) ( Supreme Court remand; cap interpretation; Stowers reservation hypothetical guidance)
- Bramlett v. Phillips, 322 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2010) (discussed remand scope and Stowers issues; pre-holdings on damages)
- Thornal v. Cargill, 587 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. 1979) (postjudgment interest accrual from original judgment)
- D.C. Hall Transport, Inc. v. Hard, 355 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1962) (postjudgment interest accrual principles)
- Cook v. Cameron, 733 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1987) (mandate effects when appellate court affirms/remands)
- Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Aircraft Network, LLC, 345 S.W.3d 139 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011) (reversal effects and mandating scope of judgment)
- In re S.S.G., 208 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2006) (stability of judgment after appellate rulings)
- In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 306 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2010) (Las Colinas: full effect vs. vacatur principles)
- B. & M. Machine Co. v. Avionic Enters., Inc., 566 S.W.2d 901 (Tex. 1978) (date for postjudgment interest when new judgment issued)