Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company and Automatic Data Processing Inc.
01-15-00066-CV
Tex. App.—WacoMar 10, 2015Background
- Patrick O. Akinwamide (pro se) filed a notice of appeal (Nov 25, 2014) seeking review of the trial court's October 3, 2014 order (denying his motion to set aside a 2000 final judgment as void for lack of TWCA jurisdiction) and the November 4, 2014 order (declaring him a vexatious litigant and imposing sanctions).
- The First Court of Appeals initially did not include the October 3, 2014 order in the docketed appeal (Cause No. 01-15-00066-CV), citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 11.101–11.103 and the court’s mandate.
- Akinwamide sought permission from the local administrative judge to pursue the appeal despite the vexatious-litigant designation; the local Administrative Judge granted permission on January 23, 2015.
- Substantively, Akinwamide argues the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) because his employer (Automatic Data Processing, Inc.) did not prove it was a subscriber / did not have workers’ compensation coverage at the time of his injury.
- The trial court (80th Dist.) denied Akinwamide’s motion to set aside the final judgment as void, found his motion frivolous, applied res judicata/collateral estoppel, sanctioned him, and entered the vexatious-litigant order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the October 3, 2014 order was properly included in the appellate filing | Akinwamide: his notice of appeal included Oct. 3 order; county clerk removed pages; trial clerk/ court lack authority to withhold or alter notice; administrative judge later granted permission to appeal | Appellees/clerks: First Court excluded Oct. 3 order under the vexatious-litigant statutes and court mandate | Initially First Court omitted the Oct. 3 order from its motions ruling; administrative judge later granted permission (Jan. 23, 2015) to file the appeal — Akinwamide sought an order to include it in the appeal. |
| Whether pre-filing permission was required and, if required, whether it was obtained | Akinwamide: permission obtained from the local Administrative Judge after filing; the October 3 order preceded the vexatious-litigant order so §§11.101–11.102 should not bar appeal | Defendants/clerks: appeal should be subject to pre-filing restrictions for vexatious litigants; First Court followed statute/mandate | Administrative Judge granted permission post-filing; statutory pre-filing rules were the basis for initial exclusion but Akinwamide secured permission and sought inclusion. |
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the TWCA to enter the final judgment (and thus whether that judgment is void) | Akinwamide: employer ADP never proved it was a subscriber / had workers’ compensation coverage at time of injury; without proof the TWCA cannot apply and the court lacked jurisdiction | Defendants: the Industrial Accident Board and prior proceedings resolved compensability; the coverage issue was not properly preserved before the IAB and thus was waived | Trial court concluded it had no plenary power to vacate the old judgment, found the motion frivolous, and denied relief; Akinwamide continues to argue lack of subscriber proof means the TWCA never applied. |
| Whether Automatic Data Processing and CNA Insurance were omitted from the October 3 order and should be added to the style | Akinwamide: ADP and CNA were added parties in his amended pleadings and defendants’ motions constituted general appearances; court should correct omission | Defendants: treated the coverage/party issues as matters previously litigated or waived | Akinwamide moved to correct the style; he asserts the court should amend the October 3 order to include ADP and CNA. The trial court denied his motion to vacate the judgment; the record shows Akinwamide pressing the correction and appeals over the omission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., 249 U.S. 152 (U.S. 1919) (statutory prerequisites must exist before a statutory remedial system applies)
- Paradissis v. Royal Indem. Co., 507 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. 1974) (proof of employer subscriber status affects availability of TWCA remedies)
- Guerrero v. Standard Alloys Mfg. Co., 598 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1980) (jury verdict immaterial if statutory prerequisites for jurisdiction are lacking)
- Johnston Testers v. Rangel, 435 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1968) (same principle on jurisdictional prerequisites)
- Aerospatiale Helicopter v. Universal Health, 778 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989) (discussing TWCC findings and consequences for court jurisdiction)