Phillips v. Bramlett (Opinion)

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » Supreme Court » 2013 » Phillips v. Bramlett (Opinion)

State: Texas

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: 12-0257

Case Date: 06/07/2013

Plaintiff: Phillips

Defendant: Bramlett (Opinion)

Preview:IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
444444444444

NO . 12-0257
444444444444

BENNY P. PHILLIPS, M.D., PETITIONER,
v.

DALE BRAMLETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKI BRAMLETT, DECEASED, SHANE FULLER AND MICHAEL FULLER, RESPONDENTS
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

Argued February 6, 2013

JUSTICE BOYD delivered the opinion of the Court. When the life cycle of a judgment extends beyond an initial appeal, courts often face unique or unsettled jurisdictional and procedural issues. This case presents three of those issues; namely, (1) whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the judgment that the trial court entered after this Court remanded the case to the trial court for entry of judgment; (2) whether postjudgment interest should be calculated from the date of the trial court's first judgment (the "original judgment") or the date of the judgment that the trial court entered following our remand (the "remand judgment"); and (3) whether the trial court erred by "vacating" the original judgment when it issued the remand judgment. We hold that (1) the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the trial court's remand judgment; (2) postjudgment interest must be calculated from the date of the

original judgment; and (3) the trial court's order vacating the original judgment was unnecessary because that judgment had already been reversed in its entirety, but it was not reversible error. We affirm the court of appeals' judgment on these grounds and again remand the case to the trial court for entry of a final judgment consistent with this opinion. I. Background This is our second time to hear this health care liability case. Because several prior opinions address the underlying facts,1 we will describe only the procedural history that is relevant to the issues currently before us. In 2005, a Lubbock County trial court entered a judgment on a jury's verdict in favor of Respondents, the family of Vicki Bramlett (the Bramletts),2 on their claims against Petitioner Benny P. Phillips, M.D. (Phillips). This original judgment awarded the Bramletts approximately $9 million in actual damages and $3 million in punitive damages. Former article 4590i,3 which governs this case, capped the recoverable amount of actual damages, but the trial court concluded that a statutory exception to the cap--the Stowers exception--applied.4 Apparently to support its application of the Stowers exception, the trial court made certain recitals in the original
1

See Phillips v. Bramlett, 288 S.W .3d 876 (Tex. 2009); Bramlett v. Phillips, 359 S.W .3d 304 (Tex. App.-- Amarillo 2012) (under review herein); Bramlett v. Phillips, 322 S.W .3d 443 (Tex. App.-- Amarillo 2010); Phillips v. Bramlett, 258 S.W .3d 158 (Tex. App.-- Amarillo 2007, no pet.) (per curiam), rev'd 288 S.W .3d 876 (2009). Respondents are Dale Bramlett, individually and as administrator of the estate of Vicki Bramlett, deceased, Shane Fuller, and Michael Fuller. Dale Bramlett is Vicki's surviving husband; Shane and Michael Fuller are her surviving sons. See Act of May 30, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S. ch. 817,

Download 12-0257-1.pdf