BEAUMONT – The Court of Appeals of the 9th District of Texas issued a ruling to vacate a trial court judgment in a man’s work injury case over findings that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to increase the man’s award.
Judge Hollis Horton wrote the appellate court order on May 17 with Justices Steve McKeithen and Charles Kreger on the panel.
“While the rules of procedure authorize trial courts to correct clerical mistakes they make when entering a final judgment, the rules do not allow corrections that a judge makes in rendering a judgment,” the opinion states.
According to the opinion, in August 2006, John Bennett was injured in an auto accident while driving a truck for his employer, Hercules Transport Inc. Bennett filed a claim with Texas Alliance, the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Hercules. Bennett challenged Texas Alliance’s award in the 253rd Texas District Court and after several years filed for summary judgment because “no issues of fact existed regarding his claim that he was entitled to compensation benefits in a greater amount than those he was awarded when his claim was decided by the department,” the opinion states.
The trial court awarded Bennett summary judgment in April 2016 and a month later Bennett filed a motion for clarification on the ruling to state exactly the amount he was awarded for prejudgment interest.
In June 2016, Bennett filed a motion to increase his compensation benefit by almost $60,000 in addition to increased attorney’s fees. After a hearing where both Bennett and Texas Alliance provided expert reports on the correct calculation for Bennett’s supplemental income benefits award, the trial court signed an order in October 2016 noting that it “respected the opinion of Bennett’s expert, a certified public accountant” and increased Bennett’s award.
Texas Alliance argued in its appeal that the trial court did not have authority to issue a new order after the final judgment in April 2016. Bennett argued that the trial court did not issue a new ruling but corrected “clerical errors” in increasing his award and costs.
“This error cannot fairly be characterized clerical,” Horton noted, explaining that the trial court did not simply correct a clerical error when changing its judgment, but used Bennett’s expert report to make the decision to change Bennett’s award. “We hold the 'corrections' at issue in this case sought to alter a decision the trial court made that was based on the court’s judicial reasoning.”
Horton stated that “judgments and orders that are signed by trial courts after they have lost their plenary power are void by operation of law.”
The appellate court held that the April 2016 trial court judgment was final and vacated the October 2016 judgment.
Court of Appeals 9th District of Texas at Beaumont case number 09-16-00437-CV