Phillips v. Bramlett, 407 S.W.3d 229

Background

The Bramletts sued Dr. Phillips in 2005; the trial court awarded approximately $9 million actual damages and $3 million punitive damages, with a Stowers exception noted in recitals.
The Amarillo Court of Appeals partially reversed and remitted, affirming actual damages as modified and taking nothing on punitive damages, then this Court reversed the cap on actual damages and remanded for entry of a new judgment consistent with Our opinion.
On remand, the trial court entered a remand judgment awarding damages capped under former article 4590i and calculating postjudgment interest from the remand date, while vacating the original judgment and omitting the Stowers recitals.
The Bramletts challenged: (a) postjudgment interest from original judgment rather than remand, (b) vacatur of the original judgment, and (c) inclusion of the Stowers recitals.
Phillips argued the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the remand judgment and that postjudgment interest must accrue from the remand judgment date.
The Court holds the court of appeals had jurisdiction, postjudgment interest accrues from the original judgment date, and vacating the original judgment was unnecessary but not reversible error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review remand judgment	Bramletts: appeals court has jurisdiction after remand; Phillips’s view of exclusive mandate limits review.	Phillips: this Court’s mandate exclusive; appeals court lacked jurisdiction to review remand judgment.	Court of appeals has jurisdiction; this Court retains review jurisdiction.
Postjudgment interest from which date on remand	Bramletts: interest runs from original judgment date; remand date incorrect.	Phillips: interest runs from remand judgment date per remand procedure.	Postjudgment interest begins from the original judgment date.
Vacatur of original judgment on remand	Bramletts: vacatur was improper given reversal in entirety; should not vacate.	Phillips: vacatur within trial court’s remand actions; permissible but not outcome-determinative.	Vacatur was unnecessary but not reversible error.
Recitals in remand judgment	Bramletts: Stowers recitals should be included to support liability insurers; otherwise moot.	Phillips: recitals moot; not needed given prior decision and insurer-not-a-party posture.	Stowers recitals not required in remand judgment.

Key Cases Cited

D.C. Hall Transp., Inc. v. Hard, 163 Tex. 504, 358 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. 1962) (remand for disposition per opinion; postjudgment interest from original judgment)
Nederlandsch-Amerikaansche-Stoomvaart-Maatschappij; Holland-Amer. Line v. Vassallo, 365 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston (1961)) (remand with instructions to enter judgment consistent with opinion; postjudgment interest from original judgment)
Wall v. Wall, 186 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. 1945) (reversing remand judgment and remanding for new judgment complying with prior instruction)
Conley v. Anderson, 164 S.W.2d 985 (Tex. 1913) (exclusive interpretation/enforcement of Supreme Court judgments; mandate compliance)
Bilbo Freight Lines, Inc. v. State, 645 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.App.-Austin 1983) (standing and appealability; dicta on mandate interpretation limited in later decisions)
El Paso County Hosp. Dist. v. Texas Health & Human Servs. Comm’n, 400 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. 2013) (limited applicability of Bilbo; mandate interpretation depends on later decisions)
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 306 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2010) (remand on remand matters; trial court must effect appellate judgment)
American Paper Stock Co. v. Howard, 528 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. 1975) (postjudgment interest from trial court judgment when appellate judgment reverses erroneous judgment)
Thermal v. Cargill, Inc., 587 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. 1979) (postjudgment interest from trial court's original judgment when remand follows reversal)
Danziger v. San Jacinto Savings Ass’n, 732 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1987) (remand and partial rendering; postjudgment interest from original judgment)