1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 18 4- CV W I L BE RT L . CLE W I S AN D APPE L L AN TS R O S E M A R Y C L E W IS V . SA FECO I N SU RA N C E CO M PA N Y A PPELL EE OF AM E RI CA

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 4 8TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1 

### ON R E HEAR I NG

----- ----- -- Th e t r i al courtdi sm i ssed som e ofA ppel l ant s W i l bertL. C l ew i s and Ro se M ary Cl ew i s’ s cl ai m s and or der ed t hatW i l bertt ak e n ot hi ng on h i s r em ai ni ng cl ai m s. I n f ouri ssues, W i l bertand R ose M ar y ar gue t hatt he t r i al courter r ed b yd i s m i s s i n g s o m e o f h i s c l a i m s , th a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b y d i s m i s s i n g W i l b e rt a n d R o s e M a ry ’s c l a i m s w i th o u t g i v i n g th e m n o ti c e u n d e r ru l e o f c i v i l p ro c e d u re2 ... S eeT e x . L a b . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 0 .1 5 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). 2 16 5a, t hatt he t r i al courter r ed by di sr egar di ng i t s ow n pr et r i al or der , and t hat A p p e l l e e S a fe c o I n su ran c e C o m p a n yo f A m e ri c a ’s m o ti o n to d e e m W i l b e rta v e x a ti o u s li ti g a n t w a s u n ti m e l y . B e c a u s e w e h o l d t h a t th e t ri a l c o u rt d i d n o t e rr a n d th a t S a fe c o ’s m o ti o n w a s ti m e l yfi l e d , w e a ffir m . Back gr ound O n Ju ne 5, 1998 , W i l berts us t ai ned a com pen sa bl e i nj ur y w hi l e d r i vi ng a t r uck i n t he cour se of hi s em pl oym ent . Saf eco w as hi s em pl oyer ’ s w or ker s’ com pensat i on i nsur ance car r i er . W i l berthas been i ni t i at i ng l a w sui t s agai nst Sa f e c o ov e ri s s ue s r e l a t e d t o t hi s i nj ury s i nc e 1999 . Th i s case ar ose outofW i l bert ’ s att em ptt o r ec o v e r t r avel expenses i ncu r r ed i n t he cour seofhi s m edi ca l t r ea t m ent . O n Ja nua r y 24, 2006 , t he D i vi si on ofW or ke r s’ Com pen sa t i on oft he Texa s D epa rt m entofI ns ur anc e ( “t he D W C ”) he l d a be nef i t s con t ested ca sehe ar i ng 2( “ CCH ” ) t o de t e r m i ne( 1)
w het herW i l bertw as ent i t l ed t o r ei m bur sem ent oft r avel expenses f orm edi cal t r ea t m entby D r . Jam esEl boa r , an d i fs o, w hatam ount ; an d ( 2) w het hert he D W C had j ur i sd i ct i on t o adj udi ca t e t he i ss ue of W i l bert ’ s i m pai r m ent r at i ng, an d i fs o, w hatt he i m pai r m entr at i ng w as . The hear i ng of f i ce rdet er m i ned t hatt he D W C had no j ur i sdi ct i on t o adj udi cat e t he i m pai r m entr at i ng a n d th atSafeco3

w as notl i abl e t o W i l bertf ort he t r avel expenses . A fter an app eal s panel a f f ir m e d t h e h e a r in g o f f ic e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n , W ilb e rts o u g h tju d ic ia l r e v i e w in th e tr i a l co u rt . W i l be rta s s e rt e d a n um be ro fc l a i m s i n t he t r i a l c ou rt , b uto n M a r c h 1, 20 07 , i n r esponse t o S af eco’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on, t he t r i al courtsi gned an or derdi sm i ss i ng a l l of t he cl ai m s exc ept ( 1) hi s cl ai m f or r ei m bur se m entoft he t r a v e l e x p e n s e s a n d ( 2 ) h is c la im t h a tt h e D W C h a d in c o r r e c t lyd e c id e d t h a tit l acked j ur i sdi ct i on to a d j u d i c at e hi s i m pai r m entr at i ng. Tr i al w as setf ort hat s a m e d a t e , b u tW ilb e rtf a ile d t o a p p e a r , a n d t h e t r ia l c o u rtd is m is s e d h is c la im s fo r w a n t o f p ro s e c u t io n . U p o n W i l b e rt’s m o ti o n , h o w e v e r, th e tri a l c o u rt r e i ns t a t e d t hec a s e i n Ju ne2007 . Tr i al t o t he cou rt w as hel d on A ugus t 21, 200 7. A tt r i al , W i l berts ought t o l i t i gat e cl ai m s t hath ad been di sm i ssed i n t he M ar ch 1 o r der . W hen t he t r i al courti nf or m ed hi m t hati tw oul d not r econsi deri t s r ul i ng di sm i ssi ng t hose cl ai m s, W i l berts t at ed t hat“ [ i ] ft hatca n’ tbe he ar d, I ’ m not con ce r ned w i t h t he $60 0 t r ave l r ei m bur se m ent ” and t hathe di d notw i sh t o pr os ec ut e h i s cl ai m f or t r avel expenses or hi s cl ai m on t he j ur i sdi ct i onal i ssue. Th e t r i al cou rtsta ted t hati tw oul d t her ef or e or dert hatW i l bertt ake not hi ng on hi s cl ai m s. O n S epte m b e r 1 4, 20 07 , bef or e t he t r i al courthad si gned a f i nal j u d g m e n t i n th e c a s e , W i l b e rt f i l e d a f o u rth a m e n d e d p e ti ti o n a d d i n g R o s e M a ry4

asa part y a nd s ee ki ng a ddi t i ona l da m age s f or l os s of ea r ni ng c apa ci t y a nd f or i nt ent i ona l i nf l i ct i on ofem ot i on al di st r es s on W i l bert ’ s beh al f . Saf ec o f i l ed a m ot i on t o st r i ke t hi s a m e n d ed pet i t i on on t he gr oun d t hati tw as an im p e r m is s ib le p o s t -t r ia l a m e n d e d p le a d in g . N o o r d e r o n t h is m o t io n a p p e a r s in t he app el l at e r ec or d, buton Dece m ber5, 2007 , t he t r i al co urts i gne d a j udgm entaf f i r m i ng t he D W C ’ s det er m i nat i on and dee m i ng W i l berta vex at i ous l i t i ga nta s t o t hef i l i ng ofan y c l a i m s ag a i ns tSaf e c o ba s e d on t heJun e 5, 1998
w or ke r s’ co m pen sa t i on i nj ur y. W i l bertand R ose M ar y each f i l ed a not i ce o fap peal , butbecause t he t r i al cou rt ’ s j udgm entdi d notdi sp os e of Rose M ary’ s cl ai m s and w ast her ef or e n ot a f i nal j udgm ent , w e d i sm i ss ed t he app ea l f orw antofj ur i sd i ct i on. R o s e M a ryth e n fi l e d a n o ti c e o f n o n s u i t o f h e r c l a i m s , a n d th e tri a l c o u rt s ig n e d a n o r d e rd is m is s in g t h e m . W ilb e rts u b s e q u e n t lyf ile d a m o t io n t o n o n s u it t he cl ai m s he had as sert ed i n hi s f ourt h am ended pet i t i on. Th i s c o u rtthen gr ant ed W i l bert ’ s m ot i on f orr ehe ar i ng, w i t hdr ew i t s di sm i ss al opi ni on a nd j udgm ent , an d s ett he ca sef orbr i ef i ng. A n a ly s is I n h i s f i r s ti s s u e , W i l b e rta r g u e s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d b yg r ant i ng S a f e c o ’s p le a t o t h e ju r is d ic t io n a n d d is m is s in g a ll o fh is c la im s e x c e p tt h e c la im f orr ei m bur sem entoft he t r avel expenses and t he cl ai m t hatt he D W C had3 ... Id . § 4 1 0 .3 0 2 (b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). 4 ... City of

A r gyle v. Pierce , 2 5 8 S .W .3 d 6 7 4 , 6 8 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d i s m ’d ).

5 ... T e x . L a b . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 0 .3 0 1 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). 6 ... Id. § 4 1 0 .3 0 2 (b ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). 5 i nco r r ec t l y deci ded t hati tl ac ke d j ur i sd i ct i on t o a dj udi ca t e h i s i m pai r m entr at i ng. H e c ont end s t hathe pr es ent ed si x i ssu es f or de t er m i nat i on t o t he hea r i ng of f i ce rand t o t he app ea l s pan el an d t her ef or e, unde rs ec t i on 410. 302 oft he l aborcode, 3he s houl d ha ve bee n a l l ow ed to pu r sue a l l oft hos e i ss uesi n t he t r i al co urt . W e r evi ew a t r i al cou rt ’ s det er m i nat i on of a pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on u n d e ra d e n o v o s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w. 4 Laborcode sect i on 4 10 . 30 1 p r ovi des f or“[j ] udi ci al r evi ew ofa f i nal dec i si on oft he app eal s panel r ega r di ng c om pen sa bi l i t y orel i gi bi l i t y f orort he a m o u n to fin c o m e o r d e a th b e n e fi ts .” 5 W i l bertar gue s t hatunde rt he l abo r code, j udi ci al r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o i ssues presented tot he app ea l s pan el . But sect i on 4 1 0 .3 0 2 l i m i t s t he i ssues i n j udi ci al r evi ew by a t r i al courtt o “i ssues deci ded byth e a p p e a l s p a n e l a n d o n w h i c h j u d i c i a l re v i e w i s s o u g h t.” 6 I n t hi s ca se , t he hea r i ng of f i ce r at t he C C H st at ed t hathe unde r st ood t he i ssues w er e “w het her[ W i l bert ] i s ent i t l ed t o r ei m bur sem entoft r avel expenses f orm edi cal t r eat m entatt he di r ect i on of D r . J am es El boar. . . an d i fso, w hat7 ... See i d. § 4 04 . 10 5 ( st at i ng t hatt he depart m entofi nsur ance’ s of f i ce ofi nj ur ed em pl oyee cou nse l m ay, t hr oug h i t s om bud sm an pr ogr am , appear bef or e t he D W C on b eha l fofan i nj ur ed em pl oye e d ur i ng a n a dm i ni st r at i ve d i s p u te re s o l u ti o n p ro c e s s ).

8 ... See i

d. § 4 1 0 .2 0 3 ; S . I

ns. Co. v. Brewster, 249 S . W . 3d 6, 16 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ); Tex. D ep’tof I ns . , D iv. of Wor ker s’ Comp. v. Ja ckso n , 225 S . W . 3d 734, 736 –37 ( Tex. A pp. — Eas t l and 200 7, no p et . ) ( st at i ng that undert he st at ut e t he hea r i ng of f i ce rm ak est he i ni t i al de ci si on i n a w or ke r s’ co m pen sa t i on di sp ut e a nd t hat“ al l s ubs equ ent p ro c e e d i n g s a re l i m i te d to a re v i e w o f th a t d e c i s i o n ” ); St. Paul Ins. Co. v. Me ffo rd, 9 9 4 S .W .2 d 7 1 5 , 7 2 0 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 1 9 9 9 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 6 am ount ” and “ w het hert he C om m i ss i on ha s t he j ur i sd i ct i on t o a dj udi ca t e t he i m pai r m entr at i ng a nd, i fs o, w hati s t he i m pai r m ent r at i ng. ” W hen t he hea r i ng o ffice ra s k e d w h e th e r th a t c h a ra c te ri z a ti o n o f th e i s s u e s w a s a l s o W i l b e rt’s und er st andi ng of t he i ssues, t he om bud sm an 7 as si st i ng W i l bertan sw er ed i n t he af f i r m at i ve. T he hea r i ng of f i ce r ’ s w r i t t en dec i si on e xpr es sl y s t at ed t hatt he C C H w as hel d t o det er m i ne t hose t w o i ssues. The heari ng off i cerconcl uded t hatW i l bertw asnoten t i t l ed t o t he t r ave l ex pen se s and t hatt he D W C di d not h a v e j u ri s d i c ti o n to a d j u d i c a te th e i s s u e o f h i s i m p a i rm e n t ra ti n g . W h e n W i l b e rt appeal ed t hatdeci si on t o t he appeal s panel , the i ssues t hatt he appeal s panel d e c i d e d we r e t h e i s s u e s d e c i d e d b yt h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e ra tt h e CC H. 8 Becau se t he onl y i ssues deci ded by t he appeal s panel w er e t he t w o i ssues deci ded att he C C H , those w er e the onl y t w o i ssues f orw hi ch j udi ci al r evi ew9 ... S eeT e x . L a b . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 0 .3 0 2 ; see al so K rueger v. A tascosa Co un ty , 1 5 5 S .W .3 d 6 1 4 , 6 1 9 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.) ( st at i ng t hat“ [ t ] he l ang uag e o f§ 410. 3 0 2 m us tbe gi ven i t s pl ai n m ea ni ng, w h ic h is t h a tju d ic ia l re v ie w is lim it e d t o is s u e s ‘d e c id e d b y ’ t h e T W C C A p p e a ls P ane l ” and hol di ng t hatap pel l antco ul d nots ee k j udi ci al r evi ew ofan i ss ue w hen s he di d notr ai set he i ss ue to appea l s pan el an d pa nel ’ s dec i si on s p e c i fi c a l l ys ta te d i t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r th e i s s u e ).

10 ... Tex. R. C i v. P. 16 5a. 7 c o u l d b e so u g h t. 9A ccor di ngl y, t he t r i al court di d not er r by l i m i t i ng i t s r evi ew t o t he t w o i ssues deci ded byt he appeal s pan el and di sm i ssi ng t he ot heri ssues r ai sed by W i l bert . W e over r ul e W i l bert ’ s f i r sti ssue. In h i s s e c o n d is s u e , W ilb e rta r g u e s t h a tru le 1 6 5 a o ft h e ru le s o fc iv il p roc e d u re p roh i b i ted the tr i a l co u rtfr o m d i sm i ss i n g h i s s u i t w ith o u t n o ti c e to hi m and t hatthe t r i al co urtab used i t s di scr et i on bydoi ng so. H e cont ends t hat a f t e rh e f ile d h is f o u rt h a m e n d e d p e t it io n o n S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , a d d in g h is
w i f e a s a p a rt y , t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i s mi s s e d t h e i r s u i t o n F e b r u a r y21, 2008 , w i t houtpr ovi di ng t hem not i ceasr equ i r ed unde rr ul e 165a. S pe ci f i ca l l y, he st at es t hatw hen he “m ade m ent i on of hi s f ourt h am ended p et i t i on t o [ t he t r i al j u d g e ], h e s i m p l yd i s p o s e d o f i t a n d m yw i fe w a s n o t e v e n p re s e n t.” Rul e 165a pr ovi dest hat“ [ a] ca sem ay be di sm i ss ed f orw antof pr os ec ut i on on f ai l ur e o fan y pa rt y s ee ki ng af f i r m at i ve r el i eft o appea rf oran y h e a ri n g o r tria l o f w h i c h th e p a rtyh a d n o ti c e .” 10 B u t t h e f in a l ju d g m e n tin t h is c a s ed id n o tre s u ltf r o m t h e t r ia l c o u rtd is m is s in g W ilb e rta n d R o s e M a r y ’s s u it8

f orw anto fp r osecut i on. Th e tr i al courtsi gned a f i nal j udg m enton D ecem ber 5, 2007, a f t e r W i l be rt ha d f i l e d hi s a m e nd e d pe t i t i on . Th i s j ud gm e ntw as a r ul i ng on t he m er i t s. A f t ert he f i nal j udg m entw as ent er ed, W i l bertf i l ed a m ot i on t o r ei nst at e, w hi ch t he t r i al co urtd eni ed on F ebr uary 21, 2008 . Att he hea r i ng on t he m ot i on, t he t r i al courti nfo rm e d W i l bertt hathi s m ot i on app l i ed t o a case di sm i ssed f orw antofpr osecut i on and t hatt he court“di dn’ tdi sm i ss [ W i l bert ’ s] c a s e d u e to l a c k o f p ro s e c u ti o n .” R a th e r, “ [t]h e c a s e h a s b e e n a d j u d i c a te d .” The app el l at e r ec or d su pport s t he t r i al cou rt ’ s cha r ac t er i z at i on of t he pr oceedi ngs. Th e f i nal j udg m ent st at es t hat t he court consi der ed t he pl eadi ngs, evi den ce , an d a r gum ent s oft he part i esa nd f ound t hatt he D W C ’ s j udgm ent sh oul d beaf f i r m ed. The f i nal j ud gm en ti s on i t s f ac e a de t er m i nat i on on t he m er i t s ofW i l bert ’ s cl ai m s, n o t a di sm i ssal underr ul e 16 5a. A nd t he t r i al cou rt ’ s or derofF ebr uary 21 den i ed W i l bert ’ s m ot i on t o r ei ns t at e; i tdi d not di sm i ssan y c l ai m s f orw antofpr os ec ut i on. I n W i l bert ’ s r epl y br i ef , he ar gues t hatbecause t he t r i al courtdi sm i ssed th e fou rt h am e n d e d p e ti ti o n w i th o u t no ti c e to h i s w i fe, h e r du e p roc e ss ri g h ts w er e v i ol at ed. Ros e M ary di d notf i l e a br i efon a ppe al an d di d nots i gn t he11 ... S ee Tex . R . A pp. P. 9. 1( b) ( “A part y not r epr esent ed by cou nsel m ust

s i g n a n yd o c u m e n t th a t th e p a rtyfi l e s .” ).

12 ... Pas el

k v. Rabun , No. 06- 08- 00093
- CV , 2009 W L1658 089, a t*2 ( Tex . A pp. — Tex ar kana June 16 , 20 09 , no pet . h. ) ( “A l t hou gh a l ayper son has th e ri g h t t o r e p res e n t t h e m se l v e s, a l a y p e rso n d o e s n o t ha v e the ri g h t t o re p re s e n t o th e rs .” ); Ji m i so n v. Mann , 957 S . W . 2d 860, 861 ( Tex. A p p .— A m a ri l l o 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t.).

13 ... S eeTe x. Con s t . a rt . V, § 10 . 9 b ri e f f i l e d b yW i l b e rt . 11 Bec aus e W i l berti s notan att orne y, h e m ay not r e p r e s e n tR o s e M a ryo n a p p e a l. 12W e over r ul e W i l bert ’ s second i ssue. I n hi s t hi r d i ss ue, W i l bertar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urte r r ed by hol di ng a b e n c h t r ia l, d is r e g a r d in g it s p r e t r ia l o r d e ru n d e rru le 1 6 6 o ft h e r u le s o fc iv il pr oce dur e. The pr et r i al or dert o w hi ch W i l bertr ef er s di d nots ett he ca sef or a j u ry tri a l . I t m e rel yo rde red the p a rt i e s to n o ti fy th e co u rtco o rdina to r i f, a mo n g o t h e rt h i n g s , a j u r yp a n e l o fmo r e t h a n t h i rt y - f i v e wo u l d b e n e e d e d . At t he t r i al be f or e t he court , w hen W i l bertas se rt ed t o t he cou rtt hatheha d not bee n gi ven a j ur y t r i al ev en t hough he ha d c al l ed t he cou rtco or di nat oran d r equ es t ed one , t he t r i al co urtl ook ed ati t s f i l esan d not ed t hatW i l bertha d not pai d a j ur y f ee. 13T he tr i al co urtf urt hernot ed t hatW i l bertha d notf i l ed a se par at e w r i t t en dem and f ora j ur y t r i alap artf r om hi s pr aye ri n hi s se con d am end ed pet i t i on, w hi ch st at ed t hat“ t he Pl ai nt i f fr es pec t f ul l y pr ayst hatt he D e fe n d a n t b e c i te d to a p p e a r a n d a n s w e r th i s p e ti ti o n u p o n fi n a l j u rytri a l .”14 ... Id. 15 ... Te x. R. Ci v. P. 216. 16 ... T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 .0 5 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 10 The Tex asConst i t ut i on pr ovi dest hat“ no j ur y s hal l be em pan el ed i n a ny ci vi l ca seunl es s dem and ed by a part y t o t he ca se , an d a j ur y f eebe pa i d byt he p a rtyd e m a n d in g a j u ry .” 14R u le 2 1 6 o ft h e ru le s o fc iv il p r o c e d u r e s im ila r ly pr ovi des t hati n a c i v i l s u i t, “[ n] o j ur y t r i al shal l be had . . . unl ess a w r i t t en r e q u e s tf o ra ju r yt r ia l is f ile d w it h t h e c le r ko ft h e c o u rta r e a s o n a b le t im e bef or e t he dat e s etf ort r i al . . . butnotl es s t han t hi rt y da ysi n a dva nce ” and t hatt he pay m entoft he j ur y f eem us tal so bem adew i t hi n t hatt i m e l i m i t at i on. 15 W i l berthad not pai d a j ur y f ee att he t i m e oft r i al , and, acco rding l y , th e t r i al c o u rtd id n o ta b u s e it s d is c r e t io n b yd e n y in g W ilb e rt ’s re q u e s tf o ra ju r yt r ia l. W e over r ul e W i l bert ’ s t hi r d i ssue. In h is f o u r t h is s u e , W ilb e rta r g u e s t h a tS a f e c o ’s m o t io n t o d e e m h im a vexat i ous l i t i gant w as not t i m el y f i l ed und ersect i on 1 1. 05 2 o ft he ci vi l pr act i ce and r em edi esco de. He al so ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed b y gran t i ng t he m ot i on becau se Saf eco di d not m eeti t s bur den t o show t hathe had pr osecut ed a t l e a s t fi v e a c ti o n s a ri s i n g o u t o f th e s a m e m a tte r. S e c ti o n 1 1 .0 5 1 p rov i d e s tha t a d e fen d a n t m a ym o v e for the co u rtto e n ter an o rde r de term in ing tha t t h e p l a i n ti ff i s a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t. 16 T h i s17 ... Id. 18 ... Tex. R. A pp. P. 33 . 1 ( st at i ng t hat p art y seeki ng app el l at e r evi ew m u s t s h o w th a t th e c o m p l a i n t w a s p re s e rv e d ); Shelton v. Standard Fi re I ns. Co. , 81 6 S . W . 2d 5 52 , 5 53 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 1 99 1, no w r i t ) ( noti ng t hat a p p e lla n th a s t h e b u r d e n t o b r in g u p r e c o r d o n a p p e a l s h o w in g e r r o rt h a tw o u ld re q u i re re v e rs a l ).

19 ... S eeTe x. Ci v. Pr a c . & Rem . Cod e Ann . § 11 . 051. 11 m ot i on m us tbe f i l ed on orbe f or e t he ni net i et h da y a f t ert he dat e t he def end ant f i l es an or i gi nal answ erorm akes a s peci al appear ance. 17 The a ppe l l ate r ec or d doe s notco nt ai n Saf ec o’ s or i gi nalm ot i on t o ha ve W i l b e rtd e c l a red a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t. 18B u t i n h i s m o ti o n fo r n e w t ri a l , W i l b e rt obj ect ed t o t he t r i a l court ’ s gr antofSafeco’ s m ot i on on t he gr oun d t hat S a f e c o ’s J u ly1 0 , 2 0 0 7 m o t i o n w a s u n t im e lyb e c a u s e itw a s n o tf ile d w it h in n i n e tyd a y s o f S a fe c o ’s o ri g i n a l a n s w e r. T h e J u l y1 0 m o ti o n w a s S a fe c o ’s a m endedm ot i on. W i l bertneverobj ect ed t hatSafeco’ s or i gi nal m ot i on w as unti m el y f i l ed, and he adm i t s i n hi s br i eft hatSafeco’ s or i gi nal m ot i on w as f i l ed on Ju l y 6, 20 06

— t he sam e day t hatSafeco f i l ed i t s answ er . The o ri g i nal m ot i on w as t he r ef or e t i m el y f i l ed. 19An am end ed m ot i on r el at esba ckt o t he20 ... S ee Ex parte G oad, 6 90 S . W . 2d 8 94 , 8 96 ( Tex . 1 98 5) ( hol di ng t hat

m ot i on f orco nt em ptr el at esba ckt o or i gi nalf i l i ng unl es s i ti s w hol l y ba se d upo n a n d g ro w s o u t o f a n e w , d i s ti n c t o r d i ffe re n t tra n s a c ti o n a n d o c c u rre n c e ); Inre Pepsico, I

nc. , 8 7 S .W .3 d 7 8 7 , 7 9 4 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.) (h o ld in g t h a ta m e n d e d m o t io n t o t r a n s f e r v e n u e r e la t e s b a c k t o o r ig in a l t im e ly fi l e d m o ti o n ); I

ndus. S tate Ban k of Houston v. Eng ’ g S erv. & Equi

p. , I nc. , 612 S. W . 2d 661, 663 ( Tex. C i v. A pp. — D al l as1981 , no w r i t ) ( “[ A ] ny d ef ec t i ve p l e a d i n g , w h e n p o i n ted o u t bym o ti o n o r ex c e p ti o n an d c u red b yam e n d m e n t, r el at es back and i s deem ed t o be f i l ed as oft he t i m e t he p r i ordef ect i ve pl ea w as f i l ed. ”)

21 ... 1 6 2 S .W .3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 7 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.). 22 ... Id. 12 dat e o ft he or i gi nal m ot i on. 20A c c o rding l y , S a fec o ti m e lyf il e d i ts m o ti o n to h a v e W i l b e rtd e c l a red a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t. W i l bertr el i eson D i

shner v. Huitt-Zo l

l ar s, I nc. t o ar gue t hatt he am ended pl ea di ng w asunt i m el y. 21 D i snher i s di st i ngu i shabl e. I n t hatcase, t he or i gi nal m ot i on w as w i t hdr aw n by t he def endan t , and a second m ot i on w as f i l ed af t er t he deadl i ne. 22H er e, not hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatSafeco everw i t hdr ew i t s or i gi nal m ot i on. W i l bertne xtar gue s t hatSaf ec o f ai l ed t o s how t hatheha s com m enc ed, p r o s e c u te d , o r m a i n ta i n e d a t l e a s t fi v e l i ti g a ti o n s th a t h a v e b e e n fi n a l ly det er m i ned ad ver sel y t o hi m an d t hathi s cl ai m s hav e n otbe en f ound t o be fri v o l o u s o r g ro u n d l e s s .23 ... S eeT e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 .0 5 4 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 24 ... S ee Sp i

l ler v. Sp i l ler, 2 1 S .W .3 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 4 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n t o n io 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.) (“ I

n propr i a p er so nai s sy nony m ousw i t h pro se ; i tr ef er s t o a si t uat i on i n w hi ch a l i t i gan tr epr es ent s hi m se l f or her se l fw i t houtt he ben ef i tof a l a w y e r.” ).

25 ... T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 .0 5 4 (1 ). 13 Be f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u rtm a ye n t e ra n o r d e rt h a ta p l a i n t i f fi s a v exa t i ous l i ti g a n t, the d e fen d a n t m u st s h o w t h a t “th e re i s n o t a rea so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty th a t th e p l a i n ti ff w i l l p re v a i l i n th e l i ti g a t io n a g a i n s t th e d e fe n d a n t.” 23 T h e def endan tm ustal so m ake a show i ng t hatt he pl ai nt i f ff al l s w i t hi n one oft hr ee ca t ego r i es , t w o of w hi ch Saf ec o as se rt ed i n t he t r i al co urt . Fi r st , t he def end ant m a y s h o w th a t i n th e s e v e n -y e a r p e ri o d p re c e d i n g th e d a te o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s m o t io n , t h e p la in t if f“ c o m m e n c e d , p r o s e c u t e d , o rm a in t a in e d in p r o p r ia per so na 24 a t l e a s t f i v e l i t i g a t i o n s o t h e r t h a n i n a s m a l l c l a i m s c o u rt t h a tha ve bee n . . . f i nal l y de t er m i ned ad ver se l y t o t he pl ai nt i f f. . . [ or ] de t er m i ned by a t r i al orappel l at e courtt o be f r i vol ous orgr oun dl ess. 25 Al t er nat i vel y, t he d e f e n d a n tm a ys h o w t h a ta f t e ra lit ig a t io n h a s f in a llyb e e n d e t e r m in e d a d v e r s e ly t o t h e p la in t if f , t h e p la in t if f“ r e p e a t e d lyre lit ig a t e s o ra t t e m p t s t o re lit ig a t e , in pr opr i a p er so na, ” ei t her( 1) t he val i di t y of t he det er m i nat i on a gai ns ta def end ant w ho w ast he sa m e d ef end ant f r om t he f i nal l y- det er m i ned l i t i gat i on or( 2) “ t he cause o f a c ti o n, cl ai m , cont r over sy, orany oft he i ssues off actorl aw26 ... Id. § 1 1 .0 5 4 (2 ). 27 ... Cle wi

sv. Sa f

e c o I n s . Co . o f

A m. , N o. 0 2
- 00- 003 08- C V ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth F e b . 1 4 , 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ).

28 ... Clewi

s v. Hi cks , N o. 02- 03- 000 14- C V , 2003 W L 2 2 8 626 30 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth D e c . 4 , 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (m e m . o p .). 14 det er m i ned orconcl ude d by t he f i naldet er m i nat i on a gai ns tt he sa m e d ef end ant a s to w h o m th e l i ti g a ti o n w a s fi n a l l yd e te rm i n e d .” 26 Th e r e c or d c on t a i nsd oc um e nt s d e m on s t r a t i ng t ha ti n Dec e m be r1999 , W i l bertsought j udi ci al r evi ew of t he appeal s panel ’ s det er m i nat i on t hathe had r ea che d m axi m um m edi ca l i m pr ove m entand i t s det er m i nat i on ofhi s i m pai r m ent ra ti n g . T h e tri a l c o u rt a ffir m e d th e a p p e a l s p a n e l ’sd e c i s i o n , a n d th i s c o u rt a ffi rm e d tha t j u d g m e n t. 27 The r ec or d f urt her sh ow s t hat W i l bert su bs equ ent l y f i l ed at l ea st f our addi t i onal sui t s:

• a s u i t a g a i n s t Sa f e c o f o r b a d f a i t h f o r d e n y i n g h i s c l a i m s , i n w hi ch t he t r i al co urtgr ant ed su m m ary j udgm entf orSaf ec o;

• a sui tagai nstSafeco f ort he unau t hor i zed r el ease ofhi s co n fi d ent i al m edi ca l i nf or m at i on, i n w hi ch t he t r i al courtgr ant ed su m m ary j udgm ent fo r S a fec o , a n d this co u rtaffi rm e d the tr i a l co u rt ; 28

• a s u itf o rju d ic i a l r e v ie w o ft h e a p p e a ls p a n e l’s d e c is io n t h a th is com pensabl e i nj ur y di d not i ncl ude hi s pel vi s or hi s r i ght el bow , i n w hi ch29 ... Cle wi sv. Sa f e c o I n s . Co . o f

A m. , No. 02- 05- 00190
- CV , 2005 W L 1 6 5 4 8 6 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth J u l y1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .).

30 ... Cle wi

sv. Sa f e c o I n s . Co . o f

A m. , No. 02- 06- 00258
- CV , 2006 W L 2 5 0 7 3 2 4 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth A u g . 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .). 15 th e tri a l c o u rt a ffir m e d th e a p p e a l s p a n e l ’sd e c i s i o n , a n d th i s c o u rt di sm i ss ed W i l bert ’ s app ea l f orw antofj ur i sd i ct i on; 29 a n d

• a bi l l ofr evi ew al l egi ng f r aud a g a i n st S af eco f orr el easi ng hi s m edi cal r ecor ds, i n w hi ch t he t r i al courtdi sm i ssed W i l bert ’ s cl ai m s aft erSafeco f i l ed a pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on, an d t hi s courtdi sm i ssed W i l bert ’ s appeal bec aus e h i s not i ceofap pea l w asunt i m el y. 30 S a fe c o th u s d e m o n s tra te d th a t i n th e s e v e n y e a rs p re c e d i n g i ts m o ti o n , W i l b e rt pr osecut ed atl eastf i ve sui t s pro se a n d thatt hese sui t s w er e det er m i ned a d v e r s e l yt o h i m. W i l bertar gued i n t he t r i al court and ar gues on app eal t hathe succeeded i n one of hi s sui t s agai nstSafeco. But t he l i t i ga ti o n h e r ef er ences, cause num ber09 6- 18 35 00
- 00 , i s i n addi t i on t o t he f i ve unsuccessf ul sui t s m ent i oned abo ve. And f urt her m or e, al t hough he m ay hav e h ad part i al suc ce ss i n t he a d m in is t r a t iv e p r o c e e d in g in t h a tc a s e , t h e re c o r d s h o w s t h a t h e d id n o tp r e v a il i n h i s s u i t i n th e d i s tri c t c o u rt. I n t h a tc a s e , th e tri a l c o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry31 ... D ougl asv. A m . Title Co. , 196 S. W . 3d 876 , 879 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 2006 , no p et . ) ( r evi ew i ng t r i al court ’ s dec l ar at i on of a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd ).

32 ... S eeTe x. Ci v. Pr a c . & Rem . Cod e Ann . § 11 . 054. 33 ... S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .3 ; I nreM. D. H. , 139 S. W . 3d 315, 318– 19 ( Te x . Ap p . — F o rtW o rt h 2 00 4, p e t . d e n i e d ) ( d e c l i n i n g t o c o n s i d e rc o m p l ai nt ra i s e d fo r th e fi rs t ti m e i n re p l yb ri e f).

34 ... S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .1 (i ). 16 j udgm entf orS af ec o and di sm i ss ed W i l bert ’ s cl ai m s aga i ns ti t . Accor di ngl y, t he t r i al co urtdi d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on bygr ant i ng Saf ec o’ s m ot i on. 31 In h is re p lyb r ie f , W ilb e rta r g u e s t h a tS a f e c o d id n o ts h o w t h a th e c o u ld n o tp r e v a il o n t h e is s u e o f “ is t h e c a r r ie r lia b le f o r t h e b e n e f it s a tis s u e in t h is hea r i ng, ” and , ac cor di ngl y, t he t r i al cou rt cou l d not f i nd hi m t o be a v exa t i ous l i ti g a n t. 32W i l b e rt d i d n o t m a k e th i s a rg u m e n t i n h i s o ri g i n a l b ri e f, a n d w e a re th e refo re n o t r e q u i red to c o n side r i t. 33Fu rt h e rm o re, W i l b e rt c i tes n o au th o ri ty t o sup porthi s ar gum ent , and he m akes no ar gum entas t o how Safeco f ai l ed t o sh ow t hathe ha d no r ea so nab l e p r oba bi l i t y ofs ucc es s on hi s cl ai m w hen he r ef used t o m ove f or w ar d w i t h i t . A ccor di ngl y, w e over r ul e t hi s arg u m entas i nad equ at el y br i ef ed. 34 W i l bertal so pr esent s t w o obj ect i ons t o event s t hat occur r ed i n t he t r i al court. F i rst, h e not es t hathe obj ect ed i n t he t r i al courtt hatt he courtw as refu sing to fo l l o w se c ti o n 4 1 0 .3 0 2 o f t h e l a b o r co d e . S e c o n d , h e o bj e c ted to35 ... S ee i d. 17 t he t r i al co urt ’ s ove r r ul i ng ofhi s m ot i on t o r ei ns t ate. W i l bertm ak esno a rgu m e n t as to w h yth e se o bj e c ti o n s e n ti tl e h i m to rel i e f an d cit e s n o au th o ri ty in s u p p o rto ft h e m . A c c o r d in g ly , th e s e a r g u m e n t s a r e o v e r r u le d a s in a d e q u a t e ly br i ef ed. 35W e over r ul e W i l bert ’ s f ourt h i ssue. W i l b e rt fi l e d i n th i s c o u rt a p l e a to th e j u ri s d i c ti o n to d i s m is s S a f e c o ’s cl ai m s ast o hi s bi l at er al car pal t unne l syndr om e i m pai r m entr at i ng a nd i nco m e b e n e fi ts . F ro m h i s a rg u m e n ts , i t a p p e a rs th a t w i th th i s m o ti o n , W i l b e rt at t em pt s t o est abl i sh S af eco’ s l i abi l i t y f ori ncom e benef i t s r el at i ng t o hi s car pal t unne l s yndr om e. Saf ec o di d notf i l e a cr os s- app ea l an d does n ot a sse rtan y cl ai m s f oraf f i r m at i ve r el i efi n t hi s app ea l . Accor di ngl y, t her e i s not hi ng f orus t o di sm i ss . W e t her ef or e d enyW i l bert ’ s m ot i on, an d, ha vi ng ov er r ul ed al l of W i l b e rt’s i s s u e s , a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t6, 2009