## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 1 8 7 - CV
W I L B E R TL . CL E W I S , S R . AP P E L L ANT 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 96TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I nt r oduc t i on A p p e lla n tW ilb e rtL . C le w is , S r . a p p e a ls t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o fh is
m ot i on t o vacat e t he j udg m enti tsi gned i n S ept em ber20 00 . I n t hr ee r el at ed i s s u e s , C l e w i s a s s e rts th a t th e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d b e c a u s e o f th e p a rti e s ’ fa i l u re t o com pl y w i t h st at ut or y and adm i ni st r at i ve r equi r em ent s concer ni ng w or ker s’
c o m p e n s a t io n s u it s . W e c o n c lu d e t h a tt h e ju d g m e n t is n o t v o id a n d t h a tC le w is1 ... I n 2005, t he l egi sl at ur e r ena m ed t he TW C C ast he D i vi si on of

W or ker s’ C om pensat i on of t he Tex as D epart m entofI nsur ance. See Com bi ned Speci alty I ns. Co. v. D eese , 26 6 S. W . 3d 65 3, 65 6 n. 1 (T e x . A p p. — D al l as 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). B e c a u s e th e e v e n ts re l e v a n t to th i s a p p e a l o c c u rre d b e fo re 200 5, an d f ort he pur pos esofs i m pl i ci t y a nd con si st enc y, w e w i l l us e t he TW C C m oni ke ri n t hi s opi ni on.

2 ... C l ew i s cont ended t hatthe T W C C i ncor r ect l y det er m i ned t hathe had r ea che d m axi m um m edi ca l i m prov em entan d t hati ter r ed i n i t s det er m i nat i on o f h i s i m p a i rm e n t ra ti n g . S ee Clewi s v. Safeco I

ns. Co. of

A m . & Tex. Wor

ker s’ Co mp . Co m m ’n , N o . 0 2 -0 0 -0 0 3 0 8 -C V , sli p o p . a t * 1 , * 1 8

– 2 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W ort h Feb . 14, 200 2, pet . den i ed) ( not des i gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) . O uropi ni on i n Cl ew i s’ s pr evi ous app ea l i n t hi s ca sede t ai l s t he f ac t s ofhi s ac ci den tan d t he h isto ry o f his ad m i n i strati v e an d j u d i c i a l p roc e e d i n g s; thu s, w e w i l l se t f o rt h onl y a br i efsum m ar y oft he f act s i n th i s o p i ni on con cer ni ng t he i ssues p a rt ic u la r lyra is e d in t h is a p p e a l. 2 fi l e d h i s m o ti o n t o v a c a tea fte r th e tri a l c o u rt’sp l e n a ryp o w e r e x p i re d ; w e t her ef or e d i sm i sst hi s app ea l f orw antofj ur i sd i ct i on. B a c k g rou n d F a c ts I n 1999, Cl ew i s f i l ed su i tag ai ns tap pel l eeSaf ec o I ns ur anc e Com pan y of Am e r i c a ( Sa f e c o) , s e e k i ng r e ve r s a l o fa f i na l d e c i s i on o ft heTe xa s W or k e r s’ Co m p e n s a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n ( TW CC) 1 r egar d i n g i nj ur i es he suf f er ed i n a t r uck acci dent dur i ng hi s em pl oym entw i t h A l l i ed W ast e I ndu st r i es. 2 I n 20 00 , aft er t h e t r i a l c o u rtd e n i e d Cl e w i s ’ s m o t i on f o rs u m m a r yj u d g m e n t , t h e T W CC i nt erven ed i n t he su i t , as ki ng t he t r i al co urtt o a f f i r m t he TW C C ’ s dec i si on. L a te r th a t y e a r, th e t ri a l c o u rt h e l d a b e n c h t ri a l o n th e m e ri ts o f C l e w i s ’s cl ai m s. A t t r i al , C l ew i s, Safeco, and t he T W C C al l appear ed and ann oun ced3 ... T h e se ap p e a ran c e s a re refl e c ted i n the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. 3 r ea dy. 3 A f t er hear i ng evi dence and ar gum ent and aft er t aki ng t he case under adv i se m ent , on S ep t em ber18, 2000 , t he t r i al co urts i gne d a f i nalj udgm ent
a ffir m i n g th e T W C C ’s a d m i n i s tra ti v e d e c i s i o n . C l e w i s a p p e a l e d th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t; in 2 0 0 2 , w e a ffir m e d th a t j u d g m e n t. S e eCle wis , No. 02- 00- 00308

- CV , s l i p op . a t*22. O v e r f i v e y e a rs l a ter, o n D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , C l e w i s fi l e d a m o ti o n to
vac at e t he j udgm entw i t h t he t r i al cou rt , con t end i ng t hat i t i s voi d bec aus e t he part i esf ai l ed t o f ol l ow s t at ut ory a nd a dm i ni st r at i ve pr oce dur esr el at i ng t o t he T W C C ’ s r i gh t t o no t i ce of t he prop os ed j ud gm e n t. S e e Tex. La b. Code Ann. § 41 0. 25 8 ( Ve r n o n 2 00 6) ; 2 8 Te x . Ad m i n . Co d e § 1 47 . 11 ( 19 96 ) ( TW CC, N o t if ic a t io n o fC o m m is s io n o fP r o p o s e d J u d g m e n t s a n d S e t t le m e n t s ). In A p r il 200 8, aft er t he t r i al cou rt con duc t ed a b r i efhe ar i ng, i tde ni ed C l ew i s’ s m ot i on t o v a c a t e . C le w is a p p e a ls t h a td e n ia l.

S tatu to ry a n d A d m i n i strati v eN o ti c eR e q u i rem e n ts B e c a u s e C l e w i s ’sth re e i s s u e s a n d th e n o ti c e p ro v i s i o n s h e re l i e s u p o n a re
r el at ed, w e w i l l consi der t he i ssues t ogether . I n r egar d t o a sui tseeki ng j udi ci al
r evi ew ofa w or ke r s’ com pen sa t i on det er m i nat i on, sec t i on 41 0. 258 oft he l abo r code st at es,4

( a) Th e part y w ho i ni t i at ed a pr oce e di ng un dert hi s subchapt er orSu bchap t erG m ustf i l e anypropos ed j udgm ent

or s ettlem ent m ade by the parti

es to the proce edi

ng , in c lu d in g a p r o p o s e d d e f a u lt j udgm ent , w i t h t he di vi si on no tl at ert han t he 30t h da y be f or e t he dat e o n w h i c h t h e c o u rt i s s c h e d u l e d t o e n t e r t h e j u d g m e ntor app r ovet he se t t l em ent . The pr opos ed j udgm en tors ett l em ent m us tbem ai l ed t o t he di vi si on byce rt i f i ed m ai l , r et ur n r ec ei pt r equ es t ed. ( b) The di vi si on m ay i nt erven e i n a pr oce edi ng unde rSubs ec t i on ( a) notl at ert han t he 30t h da y a f t erthe d at e o fr ec ei ptoft he p rop o se d j u d g m e n t or se ttl e m e n t. ( c) The c om m i ss i one rs hal l r evi ew t he pr opos ed j udgm entor se t t l em entt o det er m i ne com pl i anc e w i t h a l l ap pr opr i at e p r ovi si ons oft he l aw . I ft he com m i ss i one rdet er m i nest hatt he pr opos al i s not i n com pl i ance w i t h t he l aw , t he di vi si on m ay i nt er vene as a m at t er o f r i g h t i n the p roc e e d i n g n o t l a ter tha n the 3 0 th d a ya fter t h e d a te ofr ecei pto fthe proposed j udg m entorsett l em ent . The cou rtm ay l i m i tt he ext entoft he di vi si on’ s i nt erven t i on t o pr ovi di ng t he i n fo rm a ti o n d e s c ri b e d b yS u b s e c ti o n (e ). ( d) I f t he di vi si on does not i nt er vene bef or e t he 31 st d a yaft er t he dat e o fr ec ei ptof the pr opos ed j udgm entors ett l em ent , t he cou rts hal l en t ert he j udgm en torap pr ovet he se t t l em enti ft he c o u rtd e t e r m in e s t h a tt h e p r o p o s e d ju d g m e n to rs e t t le m e n tisin com pl i ance w i t h al l appr opr i at e pr ovi si ons oft he l aw . ( e) I ft he di vi si on i nt er venes i n t he pr oceedi ng, t he com m i ssi oner sh al l i nf or m t he cou rtofeach r ea so n t he com m i ss i one rbe l i eve s t he pr opo sed j udg m entorsett l em enti s no ti n com pl i ance w i t h t he l aw . Th e courtshal l gi ve f ul l consi der at i on to t he i nf or m at i on pr ovi ded by t he com m i ss i one rbe f or e e nt er i ng a j udgm entorap pr ovi ng a se ttl e m e n t. ( f ) A j udgm enten t er ed ors ett l em entap pr ove d w i t hout com pl yi ng w i t h t he r equ i r em ent s oft hi s se ct i on i s voi d.5

T e x . L a b . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 0 .2 5 8 (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ); se e i d. § 410. 251 ( V er non 20 06 ) . Si m i l ar l y, t i t l e 28 , sect i on 1 47 . 11 oft he adm i ni st r at i ve code st at es, ( a ) Th e p a rt y w ho r e qu e s t e d j ud i c i a l r e vi e w und e rCha pt e r410, S u b c h a p ter Fo r G sh a l l fi l e a c o p yo f anypropos ed j udgm entor se ttl em en t w i t h t he exe cut i ve di r ec t oroft he C om m i ss i on byf i l i ng i tw i t h t he G ene r al Counse l o fthe C om m i ss i on no tl at ert han t he 30 t h day befor e t he dat e on w hi ch t he court i s schedul ed t o ent er t he j udgm entorap pr ovet he se t t l em ent . A pr opos ed j udgm entor se t t l em entm us tbes entby ce rt i f i ed m ai l r et ur n r ec ei ptr equ es t ed. ( b) The i ns ur anc e c ar r i erori t s r epr es ent at i ve sh al l f i l e w i t h t he G ene r al Counse l oft he C om m i ss i on a copy ofa f i nalj udgm entor s e ttlem e n t n o t l a te r th a n th e 1 0 th d a ya fte r a court app roves the agreem ent

or s ettlem ent . ( c ) F o r s u i t s s e e k i n g j u d i c i a l r e v i e w f i l e d u n d e r Ch a p t e r410, Subcha pt erF ( r ega r di ng J udi ci al Revi ew G ene r al Pr ovi si ons ) or Subcha pt erG ( r ega r di ng Ju di ci al Revi ew ofI ss uesRega r di ng C om pensabi l i t y orI ncom e orD eat h B enef i t s) , on oraft erSep t em ber 1, 1997 , a j udgm entors ett l em entw hi ch i s notf i l ed w i t h t he c o m m is s io n in c o m p lia n c e w it h s u b s e c t i o n s ( a ) a n d (b ) o ft h is se ct i on i s voi d. ( d) A part y w ho vi ol at es t hi s sect i on m ay be subj e c t t o an a dm i n i s t r a t i v e p e n a l t y , i n c l u d i n g a p e n a l t yo fu p t o $ 1 , 000 pu r s ua ntt o t heTex a s La bo rC od e , § 415. 0035 oru p t o $10, 000 pur suantt o th e Texas Labo rC ode, § 4 15 . 02 1 forr epeat ed vi ol at i ons. 2 8 T e x . A d m i n . C o d e § 1 4 7 .1 1 (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). A n a ly s is C l ew i s con t end s t ha tthe p art i esdi d notco m pl y w i t h e i t heroft he pr ovi si onsde sc r i bed ab ove , t hatt he t r i al co urt ’ s j udgm enti s t her ef or e v oi d, an d6

th a t as a re su l t, the co u rti m p rop e rl y d e n i e d h i s m o ti o n to v a c a te t h e j u d g m e n t. T h e r e f o r e , w e m u s tin it ia llyd e c id e w h e t h e rt h e s e n o t ic e p r o v is io n s a p p lyt o t h is
ca sebe ca us e t hatw i l l d eter m i ne w het hert he 200 0 j udgm enti s voi d. Furt her m or e, w e m ustad d res s ourj ur i sdi ct i on ov ert hi s appeal , w hi ch
nec es sa r i l y f i r str equ i r esust o de t er m i ne w het hert he t r i al co urtha d j ur i sd i ct i on to v a c a te i ts j u d g m e n t th a t w a s a ffir m e d b yu s fi v e y e a rs e a rl i e r. S t andar d ofr evi ew W hen de ci di ng i ss uesr el at ed t o s t at ut ory c ons t r uct i on, w e a ppl y a de
n o v o s ta n d a rd o fr e v ie w , “a s c e rta i n i n g a n d g i v i n g e ffe c t to th e l e g i s l a tu re ’s i n te n t a s e x p re s s e d b yt h e p l a i n a n d c o m m o n m e a n i n g o f th e s ta tu te ’sw o rd s .” W ich itaCo un tyv. Bo nn in , 2 6 8 S .W .3 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 7 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ); s e e Tex. Dep ’t of Tra nsp. v. City of Sun s e tV al ley , 146 S . W . 3d 637, 642 ( Te x. 2004 ) . W e a s s um e t ha tt hel e gi s l a t ur e t r i e d t o say
w h a t i t m e a n t an d , th u s, tha t i ts w o rds are the su res t gu i d e to it s i n ten t. Bo nn in , 26 8 S . W . 3d at81 7. Ever y w or d ofa st at ut e i s pr esum ed t o have been used f ora pur pose; ever y w or d excl uded f r om a st at ut e m ustal so be pr esum ed t o ha ve be en ex cl ud ed f or a pu r p o s e . Gray v. Nash , 259 S. W . 3d 286, 291 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ). I n ascert ai ni ng l egi sl at i ve i nt ent , w e do notconf i ne ourr evi ew t o i sol at ed sta tu to ry w o rds , p h ras e s, o r cl a u se s, b u t w e i n ste a d e x a m ine the en ti re a c t.7

Id. W e m ay al so consi dert he st at ut e’ s obj ect i ves, com m on l aw , f or m erl aw , s i m i l a r p ro v i s i o n s , a n d th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e s ta tu to ryc o n s tru c ti o n . Bo nn in , 2 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 7 ; see City of SunsetV

al ley , 146 S. W . 3d a t642. T h es ta tu to rya n d a d m i n i s tra ti v ere q u i r e m e n t s ’ a p p l i c a ti o n toth etri a lc o u rt’s j u d g m e n t The Aust i n CourtofA ppe al s r ec ent l y exa m i ned t he app l i ca t i on ofs ec t i on 41 0. 25 8 to pr opo sed j udg m ent s ent er ed af t ert he co m pl et i on of adver sar i al p ro c e e d i n g s . See Tex. Prop. & Cas . I ns . G uar. A ss ’

n f or Petros uranc e Cas
. Co.
v. Broo ks , 2 6 9 S .W .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). I n Brooks , t he pl ai nt i f f( Br ook s) f i l ed su i ti n di st r i ctcourtsee ki ng r eve r sa l oft he T W C C ’sd e n i a l o f b e n e fi ts fo l l o w i n g h i s c a r a c c i d e n t. Id. at 64 7. A f t erBr ooks pr evai l ed i n sum m ar y j udg m entpr oceedi ngs, the em pl oyerco nt ended on appeal th a t t h e tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t w a s vo i d b e c a u se th e p a rt i e s did no t c o m p l yw i th
s e c t i o n 4 10 . 25 8 b yt i m e l ys u b m i t t i n g t h e p r o p o s e d j u d g m e n tt o t h e T W CC. Id. at 6 4 7

– 4 8 . B ro o k s a rgu e d tha t se c ti o n 4 1 0 .2 5 8 d o e s n o t ap p l yto j udg m ent s pr epar ed by t he t r i al co urtf ol l ow i ng adv er sar i al pr oceedi ngs and t hat i ti ns t ea d a ppl i esonl y t o j udgm ent s r es ul t i ng f r om pa rt i es ’ s ett l em ent
a g re e m e n ts . Id. a t 6 4 8

– 4 9 ; see Tex. La b. C ode A nn. § 410. 258 ( a) ( app l yi ng t he r equ i r em ent s of se ct i on 410 . 258 t o “a ny pr opos ed j udgm ent ors ett l em ent8

m adeby t he pa r t i es t o t he pr oce edi ng” ) . The A us t i n c ourtex pl ai ned t he content i ons oft he part i es: [ t he em pl oye r ] co nt end s t hatbe caus e “a j udgm ent ” doe s not di st i ngui sh be t w ee n pr opos ed j udgm ent s “m adeby t he part i es ” and j udg m ent s ent er ed by t he t r i al court t hat have notbeen subm i t t ed b ythe p a rt i e s b y a g ree m e n t, th e l e g i slatu re i n ten d e d for the sta tu te t o a p p lyt o a n y ju d g m e n t s r e g a r d le s s o fw h e t h e rt h e ya r e t h e re s u lt o f ag ree m e n t o r th e a d v e rsa ri a l p roc e ss . B roo k s re sp o n d s th a t, w h e n re a d i n g the sta tu te a s a w h o l e , th e refere n c e to “ a j u d g m e n t” i n subsect i on ( f ) i s l i m i t ed by subsect i on ( a) oft he st at ut e. H e c ont end s t hatt he gen er al l ang uag e o fs ubs ec t i on ( f ) ca nnot app l y t o a br oad err ang e o fj udgm ent s t han t hos e cont em pl at ed by su b se c ti o n ( a ), w h i c h

— a c c o rding to B roo k s— a p p l i e s o n l yto p ro p o s e d j u d g m e n ts “ m a d e b yth e p a rti e s .” Brooks , 269 S . W . 3d at649. The A us t i n courtsi ded w i t h Br ook s, hol di ng a nd expl ai ni ng t hat th e l e g i slatu re d i d n o t i n ten d th a t th e sta tu te a p p l yto j u d g m e n ts e n te re d b ythe tr i a l co u rttha t w e re n o t su b m i tted o r pro p o se d to t he cou rtby agr ee m entof t he part i esort he r es ul tofa def aul tby t he def endan t . The st at ut e w as i nt ended t o pr eventt he part i es f r om col l udi ng t o overt ur n appeal s panel deci si ons. I taccom pl i shes t hi s pur pos e b y r equ i r i ng s ubm i ss i on ofj udgm ent s “m ade ” by t he part i es — i . e. j udgm ent s pr opos ed t o t he cou rt by a gr ee m entoft he part i es r at hert han j udg m en ts e n ter ed as a r esul tofadver sar i al pr oce edi ngs . I f , how eve r , t he st at ut e w eret o a ppl y t o a ny j u d g m e n t, a s tri c t re a d i n g o f th e s ta tu te w o u l d re q u i re a tri a l c o u rt to fi g u re o u t a w a yto g e t t h e p a rt yw h o i n i ti a ted the ac ti o n to s u b m i tt h e j u d g m e n t t h e c o u rti s p r e p a r i n g t o e n t e rt o t h e [ TW CC] f orappr oval t hi rt y days i n advan ce ofent r y i n ever y case.

. . . . W e c onc l udet hats ec t i on 410. 258 doe s notr equ i r e t he [ TW C C ] t o r ec ei ve adv anc e n ot i ceofev er y j udgm enti n a4 ... The courtr ec ogni z ed t hati t s hol di ng c onf l i ct ed w i t h a n opi ni on f r om

th e E l P a s o C o u rt o f A p p e a l s , w h i c h a p p l i e d s e c ti o n 4 1 0 .2 5 8 to a s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. Brooks , 2 6 9 S .W .3 d a t 6 5 1 ; see I ns. Co. of

Pa. v. Marti

nez , 18 S .W .3 d 8 4 4 , 8 4 8 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.); se e al soS. I ns . Co. v. Brewster, 2 4 9 S .W .3 d 6 , 1 2

– 1 4( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 st D i st.] 2 0 0 7 , p e t. den i ed) ( l i ke w i seap pl yi ng s ec t i on 4 10. 258 t o a s um m ary j udgm ent ) . The El P a so co u rtrec o g n i ze d , h o w e v e r, th a t t h e p u rpo se o f se c ti o n 4 1 0 .2 5 8 i s to
“ p re v e n t th e u s e o f s e ttlem e n t a g re e m e n ts a n d d e fa u l t j u d g m e n ts to o v e rtu rn appeal s panel deci si ons. ” Marti nez , 18 S . W . 3d a t847. 9 pr oceedi ng i ni t i at ed und ersubch a p terF orG oft he l aborcode. I n s t e a d , w e a r e o ft h e o p i n i o n t h a tt h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h e [ TW CC] t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f p r o p o s e d j u d g m e n t s “ m a d e b yt he part i es”— i . e. w i t hou tj udi ci al over si ght orw i t hou tf ul l y adver sar i al pr oceedi ngs— and set t l em entagr eem ent s m ade b ythe part i es. Thi s i nt er pr et at i on e ns ur est hatt he t r i al courtdoe s nots i gn of fon a p r o p o s e d j u d g m e n tm a d e o ra g r e e d t o b yt h e p a rt i e s b e f o r e t he [ TW C C ] has been no t i f i ed and gi ven an op port uni t y t o i nt er vene. A ddi t i onal l y, this i nt er pr et at i on do es notpl ace i m pr act i cal pr ocedu r al bur dens on t he t r i al courtorper m i ta part y w ho i ni t i at ed t he pr oce edi ng t o avoi d ordel ay ent r y ofan ad ver sej udgm entby r ef us i ng t o s ubm i tt he j udgm entt o t he [ TW C C ] . Thi s i nt er pr et at i on a ls o g iv e s m e a n in g t o t h e p h r a s e “ m a d e b yt h e p a rt ie s ” t h a tis consi st entw i t h t he pur pose oft he st at ut e. Id. a t 6 5 0

– 5 1 (fo o tn o te s o m i tte d ). 4 W e h a v e n o t e x p re s s l yc o n s i d e re d th e i s s u e o f s e c ti o n 4 1 0 .2 5 8 ’s appl i cat i on t o j udg m en ts ent er ed f ol l ow i ng com pl et i on of f ul l y adver sar i al pr oce edi ngs . Af t erex am i ni ng t he l egi sl at ur e’ s i nt entas expr es se d i n t he w or ds oft he st at ut e, w e agr ee w i t h t he A ust i n court thatsect i on 4 10 . 25 8 ap pl i es onl y t o j udg m ent s r esul t i ng f r om def aul t s or part i es’ agr eem ent s orsett l em ent s. See i d. Spec i f i ca l l y, l i ket he A us t i n c ourt , w e co ncl udean d hol d t hatt he5 ... O u r co n c l u s ion i s s tr e n g th e n e d b yl e g i slati v e h i sto ry. T h e se n a te

res e a rch ce n ter’s an a l y sis o f th e b i l l cre a ti n g se c ti o n 4 1 0 .2 5 8 ex p l a i n e d i ts pur pose: C h a p te r 4 1 0 o f th e L a b o r C o d e c u rre n tl ya l l o w s i n s u ra n c e c a rri e rs engag ed i n a w or ker s’ com pensat i on l aw sui tt o set t l e t hei rcase and t hen cl ai m thatthe set t l em entag r eem entrever ses orm odi f i es an appeal s panel deci si o n aw ar di ng ben ef i t s. C ar r i er s al so use j u d g m e n ts b a se d o n d e fau l t o r o n an ag ree m e n t of th e p a rt i e s to ac com pl i sh t he sa m e end . A ddi t i ona l l y, ca r r i er s so m et i m esatt em pt t o use t hese sett l em entagr eem ent s and j udg m ent s t o seek rei m b u rse m e n t th rou g h th e S u b se q u e n t Inj u ry F u n d fo r an yb e n e fi ts t heym ay hav e p r ovi ded t o a cl ai m ant . Thi s pr opos ed l egi sl at i on pr event s bot h oft hese pr act i ces.

. . . . [ Th e bi l l ] w oul d pr ev e n t t he use ofsett l em entagr eem ent s, and j udg m ent s based on def aul t oron an agr eem entoft he part i es, t o overt ur n appeal s panel deci si ons. S e n a te R e s e a rc h C tr., B i l l A n a l y s i s , T e x . H .B . 3 1 3 7 , 7 5 th L e g ., R .S . (1 9 9 7 ). 10 l ang uag e c ont ai ned i n s ec t i on 410. 258 ( a)

— app l yi ng t he se ct i on t o “ any pr opos ed j udgm entors ett l em en tm ad e by t he part i est o t he pr oce edi ng, i ncl udi ng a pr opos ed def aul tj udgm ent ”— exp r es se d t he l egi sl at ur e’ s i nt ent i on t hatt he TW C C r ec ei ve not i ceofj udgm ent s m adew i t houtj udi ci al ove r si ghtor
w i th o u t fu l l ya d v e rs a ri a l p ro c e e d i n g s . S ee T e x . L a b . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 0 .2 5 8 (a ); Brooks , 269 S. W . 3d a t651. 5 W e l i ke w i seco ncl udet hatt he r el at ed pr ovi si on oft he adm i ni st r at i ve cod e a ppl i esonl y t o j udgm ent s ent er ed apa rtf r om com pl et ed adv er sa r i al pr oc ee di ngsbe ca us e i t s t er m s l i m i tt he pr ovi si on t o a11

“p r opos ed j udgm entorsett l em ent ” and t o a cou rt ’ s app r ova l ofan “ agr ee m ent
o r s e ttlem e n t.” 2 8 T e x . A d m i n . C o d e § 1 4 7 .1 1 (a ), (b ); s eeCheatum v. Tex. Wo rkers ’ Co mp . Co m m ’n , No. 05- 98- 00846

- C V , 2 001 W L1001 94, a t*2 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l asFe b. 7, 2001 , no p et . ) ( notde si gn ated f orpubl i ca t i on) ( “I n t he case atbar , no agr eem entorsett l em entw a s r eached; t her ef or e, [s e c ti o n ] 1 4 7 .1 1 d o e s n o t a p p l y .” ). A s des cr i be d ab ove , t he t r i al co urt ’ s j udgm enti n t hi s ca sef ol l ow ed a contes t ed t r i al i n w hi ch C l ew i s, Safeco, an d t he T W C C al l m ade appear ances a nd p a rt i c i pa t e d i n t het r i a l . Th us , w e c on c l ud e t ha t ne i t he rs e c t i on 410. 258
o ft h e la b o rc o d e n o rt it le 2 8 , s e c t io n 1 4 7 .1 1 o ft h e a d m in is t r a t iv e c o d e a p p ly t o t he j udgm entan d t hati ti s t her ef or e n otvoi d. Jur i sd i ct i on W hen t he t r i al courtl oses pl enar y pow erovera j udg m ent , i tal so ge ne r al l y l ac ks t he au t ho r i t y t o vac ate t he j ud gm en t. S ee Tex. R. Ci v. P. 3 2 9 b (f); D eGrootv. D eGroot, 260 S. W . 3d 658, 662 ( Te x. App . — Dal l a s 2008 , no pet. ) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“pl enar y pow ert o gr anta new t r i al o r to vacat e,
m odi f y, co r r ect , o rref or m a j udg m enti s l i m i t ed t o a m axi m um o fo ne hun dr ed and f i ve da ys a f t e r t he j ud gm e nt i s s i gn e d” ) . Pr oc e e di ng s r e l a t e d t o t he t r i al
cou rt ’ s j udgm entaft eri t s pl ena r y pow erha s exp i r ed ar e g ene r al l y be yond t he tri a l c o u rt’sj u ri s d i c ti o n . See I n re Dickas on , 987 S. W . 2d 570, 571 ( Te x. 1998 )12

(o ri g . p ro c e e d i n g ); Colem an v. Sitel Cor p. , 21 S. W . 3d 411, 413 ( Tex. A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t .) (h o l d i n g th a t a fte r th e tri a l c o u rt’sp l e n a ry p o w e r e x p i re d , th e c o u rt h a d n o ju ri s d i c ti o n to c h a n g e o r v a c a te i ts j u d g m e n t); Mo o rev. Bro wn , 9 9 3 S .W .2 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 4( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 9 , p e t. den i ed) ( st at i ng t hat onc e “a t r i al co urt ’ s pl ena r y po w erha s exp i r ed, i tha s no j u ri s d i c ti o n to m o d i fyo r c h a n g e i ts o ri g i n a l j u d g m e n t e x c e p t b yb i l l o f re v i e w ” );
se e al soS tate exrel

. La tty v. O wens , 907 S. W . 2d 484, 486 ( Te x. 1995 ) (“ J u d ic ia l a c t io n t a k e n a f t e rt h e c o u rt ’s ju r is d ic t io n o v e ra c a u s e h a s e x p ir e d is
a n ul l i t y. ” ) . Her e , t het r i a l c ou rte nt e r e d i t s f i na l j ud gm e nti n Se pt e m be r2000 ; it s p le n a r yp o w e rt o c h a n g e o r v a c a t e t h e ju d g m e n t h a d t h e r e f o r e e x p ir e d w e ll b e fo re C l e w i s fi l e d h i s m o ti o n to v a c a te . See g eneral ly Tex. R. Ci v. P. 329b; D eGroot, 260 S. W . 3d a t662. W e ar e w i t hou tj ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew a m ot i on t o vacat e f i l ed i n t he t r i al
c o u rt a fte r th a t c o u rt’sp l e n a ryp o w e r h a s e x p i re d . See Sha ckelf ord v. Barton , 15 6 S . W . 3d 60 4, 60 7 ( Tex . A pp. — Ty l er 20 04 , pet . deni ed) ( expl ai ni ng t hatan “u nt i m e l ym o t i o n t o s e ta s i d e a j u d g m e n tp r o v i d e s n o b a s i s f o rc o n s i der at i on on ap p e a l ” ); Zar

ate v. Sun Oper

ati ng L td. , 40 S. W . 3d 617, 623 ( Tex. A pp . — S an A nton i o 2 0 0 1 , pe t . de ni ed ); Bahr v. Kohr, 928 S. W . 2d 98, 100 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 6 , w ri t d e n i e d ) (n o ti n g th a t a n “ a p p e l l a te c o u rt’s j u ri s d i c ti o n e x te n d s n o fu rth e r th a n th e j u ri s d i c ti o n o f th e t ri a l c o u rt” ).6 ... T h e H oust on [ Fi r stD i st r i ct ] C ourtofA ppeal s has hel d t hata t r i al

cou rt ’ s pl ena r y po w erdoe s not exp i r e w hen a j udgm ent i s voi d und ers ec t i on 410 . 258 be ca us e a t r i al co urtdoe s notha ve j ur i sd i ct i on t o s i gn a ny j udgm ent i n v i o l a ti o n o f th a t s e c ti o n . Metro. TransitA uth. v. Ja ckso n , 212 S . W . 3d 797, 80 3– 04 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 1stD i st . ] 20 06 , pet . deni ed) ( concl udi ng t hat t he t r i al court ’ s j udg m ent , w hi ch w as based on an agr eem entoft he part i es, w a s v o i d ).

7 ... S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .3 (a ). 13 B e c a u s e w e h o ld t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rt ’s S e p t e m b e r2 0 0 0 ju d g m e n tisn o tv o id 6 and t hatt he t r i al courtdi d not have pl enar y pow erovert hatj udg m entw hen C l ew i s f i l ed hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e t he j udgm enti n 2 007 , w e a cc or di ngl y do not have j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s appeal , w hi ch r el at es t o t he pr oper d e n i a l o f t hat
m o ti o n . S e eSh a ckelfo rd, 1 5 6 S .W .3 d a t 6 0 7 ; Bahr, 928 S. W . 2d a t100. C onc l us i on H avi ng deter m i ned t hatw e l ack j ur i sdi ct i on ov ert hi s appeal , w e di sm i ss t he app ea l f orw antofj ur i sd i ct i on. 7

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 19, 2009