IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER (Other)

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » Supreme Court » 2010 » IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER (Other)

State: Texas

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: 09-0733

Case Date: 03/12/2010

Judge: an appropriate reduction of the punitive damages award. We trust the trial court

Preview:IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS
COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL
CENTER (Other)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
No. 09-0733
In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas
d/b/a Las Colinas Medical Center, Relator
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
PER CURIAM
In this mandamus case, we must decide whether a trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reduce a punitive
damages award where such damages were statutorily capped as measured against an economic damages award. We
hold that it did. In a previous appeal of this same underlying case, we rendered a judgment that reduced the amount of
economic damages awarded. Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 271 S.W.3d 238, 257 (Tex. 2008).
Although our judgment did not also expressly order a reduction of the award of punitive damages, it is what the statute
requires. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 41.008(b). Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus.
In the underlying suit, the widow and sons of Robert Hogue, Jr. won a jury verdict on their medical malpractice claims
against Columbia Medical Center. The trial court and court of appeals awarded them economic and punitive damages.
Id. (capping any punitive damages award at (1) two times any amount of economic damages plus (2) an amount equal
to any noneconomic damages not exceeding $750,000). On appeal, we reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in
part, vacating a portion of the economic damages award loss of inheritance damages for want of legally sufficient
evidence, while affirming the rest of the judgment. Columbia Med. Ctr., 271 S.W.3d at 257. Our judgment read in
relevant part:
1) The portion of the court of appeals judgment awarding loss of inheritance damages is reversed and judgment is
rendered that the respondents take nothing on that claim;
2) The remaining portions of the court of appeals judgment are affirmed; and
3) Petitioner shall bear the costs incurred in this Court and in the court of appeals.
After our mandate issued, Columbia attempted to tender payment to the Hogues, subtracting the loss of inheritance
damages amount, and reducing the punitive damages amount proportionately. When the Hogues refused this payment,
Columbia moved the trial court to enter a modified final judgment that would effectuate our mandate by reducing the
economic damages award appropriately, as well as by reducing the punitive damages award to twice the amount of the
economic damages award we affirmed, plus interest. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing, leaving intact
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2001522.html[8/20/2013 9:05:10 PM]

the court of appeals punitive damages award, which had been measured against an economic damages award that
included loss of inheritance damages. As a result, the amount of punitive damages awarded by the final judgment
exceeds the statutory cap.
Columbia petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. We have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to enforce our
orders. See Lee v. Downey, 842 S.W.2d 646, 648 (Tex. 1992) (observing that a party may seek a writ of mandamus if
a trial court fails to issue judgment in accordance with this Court s mandate); Gammel Statesman Publ g Co. v. Ben C.
Jones & Co., 206 S.W. 931, 932 33 (Tex. Comm n App. 1918, holding approved, judgm t adopted) ( [This Court s]
jurisdiction continues until the case is fully determined by the court and its judgment is completely executed by the
court below. ).
A writ of mandamus will issue when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 36 (Tex. 2004). A trial court abuses its discretion when
it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Poly-America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 346 47 (Tex. 2008).
Punitive damages awards that are statutorily capped are required to be recalculated when the actual damages against
which they are measured are reduced on appeal. See, e.g., Gunn Infiniti, Inc. v. O Byrne, 996 S.W.2d 854, 861 (Tex.
1999) (vacating mental anguish damages because of legally insufficient evidence and reforming the judgment to reflect
recalculated Deceptive Trade Practices Act damages at three times economic damages); Gen. Chem. Corp. v. de la
Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 924 (Tex. 1993) (remanding for a recalculation of the punitive damages cap because wrongful
death damages must be excluded); see also Seminole Pipeline Co. v. Broad Leaf Partners, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 730, 760
61 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) ( Because the award for . . . mental anguish is vacated, the punitive
damage cap and prejudgment interest must be recalculated. ). Indeed, the Hogues do not dispute that an order
expressly requiring a reduction of the punitive damages award would have been proper. The question presented here,
though, is whether our judgment had that effect.
Although our judgment did not expressly address the amount of punitive damages, the statute capping punitive
damages as measured against economic damages requires a reduction in punitive damages as a matter of law. See Gen.
Chem. Corp, 852 S.W.2d at 924. We hold that, regardless of whether an appellate court judgment expressly commands
it, trial courts must give effect to statutory caps on damages when the parties raise the issue. Accordingly, to give full
effect to our judgment vacating a portion of economic damages, the trial court was required to reduce the punitive
damages award in compliance with the statutory cap. By failing to do so, the trial court abused its discretion. See In re
Poly-America, 262 S.W.3d at 346 47. Because this issue arises in connection with a final judgment following an
appeal to this Court, we conclude that Columbia now has no other adequate remedy by appeal. For these reasons, and
without hearing oral argument, see Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c), we grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the
trial court to vacate its order denying Columbia s motion to modify the judgment, and to enter a final judgment making
an appropriate reduction of the punitive damages award. We trust the trial court will comply, and the writ will issue
only if it fails to do so.
OPINION DELIVERED: March 12, 2010
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2001522.html[8/20/2013 9:05:10 PM]

Download 2001522.pdf