Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company and Automatic Data Processing Inc.
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 7214
Tex. App.2016Background
- In 1989 Akinwamide alleged workplace respiratory injuries from secondhand smoke while employed by ADP; ADP had a workers’ compensation policy with Transportation (Transportation is a CNA subsidiary).
- The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied his claim (final decision Aug. 14, 1997); Akinwamide sued Transportation in 1997 to challenge that denial.
- At trial in 2000 a jury found Akinwamide failed to timely appeal the Commission decision; the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment on Aug. 9, 2000.
- Akinwamide repeatedly pursued relief thereafter (appeals, a separate common-law suit, a bill of review, and multiple motions to set aside the judgment); appellate courts consistently rejected his challenges and found evidence ADP had coverage.
- In Aug. 2014 Akinwamide filed another motion to set aside the 2000 judgment claiming lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the trial court denied relief, held a show-cause hearing, declared the motion frivolous, imposed $3,000 in sanctions, and declared Akinwamide a vexatious litigant.
- This appeal challenges jurisdiction, preclusion, adequacy/timeliness of motions, the sanctions order, the vexatious-litigant declaration, and the completeness of the reporter’s record; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over statutory workers’ comp claim | Akinwamide: pleadings did not affirmatively invoke trial-court jurisdiction; ADP lacked coverage so court lacked jurisdiction | Transportation: prior appellate rulings and the Commission order establish ADP was a subscriber and court had jurisdiction | Court: jurisdiction existed; prior appellate decisions established coverage; issues precluded by prior rulings — overruled Plaintiff’s first two issues |
| Plenary power / voidness of 2000 judgment | Akinwamide: judgment void for lack of jurisdiction so trial court retained plenary power to set aside (filed motion 2014) | Transportation: judgment is not void; prior appellate panel already held trial court had jurisdiction and plenary power had expired | Court: plaintiff’s prior appeals foreclose voidness argument; trial court lacked plenary power in 2014 — overruled Plaintiff’s third issue |
| Res judicata / collateral estoppel re common-law claims | Akinwamide: res judicata was not pleaded in 1999 answer, so court cannot rely on it | Transportation: later asserted res judicata in response to 2014 motion; prior final rulings bar relitigation | Court: raising res judicata in response to the 2014 motion was proper; common-law claims barred by preclusion — overruled Plaintiff’s fourth issue |
| Sanctions and vexatious-litigant declaration | Akinwamide: motions legally insufficient; show-cause order inadequate; pro se cannot be sanctioned under Ch.10; findings/order lacked specificity; untimely vexatious motion | Transportation: 2014 motion described specific conduct (filing frivolous 2014 motion); trial court had authority to act on its own motion; evidence shows repeated relitigation and frivolous filings | Court: Transportation’s motion was legally sufficient; evidentiary hearing supported finding the 2014 motion was frivolous and for improper purpose; trial court properly imposed sanctions and declared Akinwamide vexatious (even if defendant’s motion untimely, court acted on own motion) — overruled Plaintiff’s 5–7, 9–10 issues |
| Reporter’s record adequacy | Akinwamide: supplemental record contains inaccuracies and omissions preventing appeal | Transportation: supplemental record cured prior incompleteness; appellant failed to identify specific inaccuracies | Court: appellate abatement obtained supplemental record; appellant did not point to specific errors; record adequate — overruled Plaintiff’s eighth issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (plaintiff must plead facts affirmatively demonstrating subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction questions)
- Tesco Am., Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc., 221 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2006) (when a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (void judgments and finality principles)
- Nath v. Tex. Children’s Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (Chapter 10 sanctions framework and presumption of good faith)
- In re Douglas, 333 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (trial court may enter vexatious-litigant order on its own motion after notice and hearing)