Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialize Surgery, L.P. v. Republic Services, Inc.
401 S.W.3d 712
Tex. App.2013Background
- Hand & Wrist Center of Houston and SCA Hospital sue Republic Services under a Letter of Guarantee to pay for medical services rendered to Republic's employee.
- Republic received first bills on Oct 14, 2009 and did not pay; later, partial pretrial payments were made on Oct 4, 2011.
- Totals due originally were $4,028.62 to Hand & Wrist and $15,534.51 to SCA Hospital; post-notice and attempts, jury awarded damages of $1,113.14 and $13,017.45 respectively.
- Plaintiffs sought prejudgment interest and other relief; Republic argued no interest on pretrial payments and that only jury-damages accrued interest.
- Trial court awarded prejudgment interest only on jury-damages; it did not award interest on the pretrial payments; appellate court grants relief and modifies judgment.
- Dissent would reject extending interest to pretrial payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest can attach to pretrial payments | Hand & Wrist argues pretrial payments are undisputed and without credit, so interest should accrue | Republic argues interest accrues only on amounts awarded by the jury and on amounts in the judgment | Yes; interest on pretrial payments must be awarded using the declining principal formula |
Key Cases Cited
- Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006) (establishes declining principal formula for prejudgment interest on pretrial payments)
- Battaglia v. Alexander, 177 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. 2005) (prejudgment interest framework; crediting settlements/payments over time)
- Johnson & Higgins of Tex., Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. 1998) (equitable basis for prejudgment interest when no statute applies)
- Hoxie Implement Co. v. Baker, 65 S.W.3d 140 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2001) (partial payments do not bar interest; applying customary rule to principal and interest)
- XCO Prod. Co. v. Jamison, 194 S.W.3d 622 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (undisputed amounts may support interest even if not submitted to jury)
- GuideOne Lloyds Ins. Co. v. First Baptist Church of Bedford, 268 S.W.3d 822 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008) (application of declining principal formula to adjust interest)
- Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1935) (Seventh Amendment/additur considerations not broad to prejudgment interest)
- Brainard (as cited with Battaglia), 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006) (integrates Brainard/Battaglia framework for pretrial payments)