### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00755- CV

Inde m nity I nsur anc e Co m panyof N or th Am e r ic a, App e lla nt
v. Mart in B owi e, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN302472 , HO NORAB LE WILLIAM E. BENDER, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N
I ndemnity I nsuran ce C o mp an y

o f N o rthAmeric a appe als from the judgment awa rding disability benef its t o M artin Bowie under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Ac t. Appellant
c onte nd s th at th e jud g me nt i s v oid be c a us e B ow ie did no t se nd

a c op y of the pr op os e d ju dgme nt t o the ex ecutive director of the Texas Worker’s Compensation Com mission at least thirty day s befor e the district court sig ned the judgment. SeeTex. L ab. Code Ann. § 410.258( a) ( West S upp. 2005). We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. Bow ie soug ht judicial reviewof the de nial of bene fit s b y an appeals panel of the Commi ssion. Base d on a jury verdic t, the district court re verse d the appeal s panel’ s decision by judgme nt signe d September 20, 2004. Bow ie filed a motion to modify the judg ment, reque sting that the cour t reduc e the time period for which he was found to b e d i s ab l ed to conf orm with the administrative hea

ringdate. Se eid . § 41 0. 30 2 ( Wes t 19 96 ) (t ri a l c ov e rs on ly iss ue s he ard by a pp e a lsAppellant attac hes to its br ief copies of documents that are not pa rt of the appe llate re cord 1 and ar e not properl y

befor e us. See Mi tc his on v . H ou sto n I nd e p. Sc h. Di

st. , 803 S.W .2d 769, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1991, writ denied) ; see also CVN Group, Inc. v . Delgado , 47 S.W .3d 157, 166 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001), rev’d on other grounds , 95 S.W .3d 234 (Tex. 2002); se ege ne ra lly

Tex. R. App. P . 34.1, 38.1(j). We note, howeve r, that the documents do not support appellant’s c ontention. Appellant ha s su bmi tte d a c op y of a let ter dat ed Sep te mbe r 2 9, 20 04 , a dd re sse d to the Commis sio n, wi th enclosure that appea

rs to demonstrate that Bowie did, in fact, de liver a c opy of the propose d ju dgment to t he Commis sio n’ s e xec uti ve dir e c tor in a tim e ly fa sh ion . T his le tte r i s in c lud e d in appellant’ s briefingbut is unex plained and unr ebutted. 2 pa ne l)
. In the mot ion to mod if y , B ow ie state d that he se nt a c op y of the pr op os e d n e w j ud g me nt t o the Commi ssion on September 29, 2004, and he reque sted that the court sign the modified judg ment afte r Nove mber 1, 2004. The district court sig ned the judg ment on November 2, 2004. Appellant conte nds tha

t t h e N o v e mb e r

2 , 2 0 0 4 judgment is void because Bow ie fa iled to c omp ly wi th s tatut or

y re qu ir e me nts fo r n oti c e to t he Commis sio n. Th e pa

rt y wh o in iti ate s a

su it for j u d ic ia l r e v ie wmu s t d e li v e r to th e Co mm is s io n ’ s e xe c uti v e d ir e c to r a c o p y o f any proposed judgme nt not later than thirty day s befor e the date on which the c ourt is sch ed u l ed t o en ter the judgme nt. Tex. L ab. Code Ann
. § 410.258(a) . Fa ilure to comply makes the judgment void. Id
. § 4 10 .2 58 (f

); see I nsurance Co. of

Pa. v. Martinez , 18 S.W .3d 844, 847 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000, no writ). The rec o rdd o es n o ts u p p o rtap p el l an t ’s co n t en t i o nre gar d i n g d el ivery of the propose d judgme nt to the executive direc tor. Appellant a sserts that B owie did notsend a c opy of the propose d modified judg ment to the Commi ssion. Nothing in the appe llate re cord suppor ts this assertion. The 1 only ref ere nce in the cler

k’s rec ord to compliance or noncompliance with the delivery require ment is Bowie’ s statement in his moti on to modify that he filed the proposed modified judgment with theWe also note that appe llee filed a motion to dismiss appellant’ s points because appellant 2 did not file a notice of

appea l timely

afte r the Septembe r 20, 2004 judg ment. But the pe rf ec tion timetable is based on the date of the final judg ment—here , November 2. See ge nerally Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Although we need not consider the me rits of appe llant’s complaints about the September 20 jud g me nt, we have jurisd ic tio n o ve r t he m. We ov e rr

ule a pp e lle e ’s mot ion

to d ism iss
. 3 Commi ssion on September 29, 2004. Nothing in the rec ord cha lleng es B owie’s state ment, which he reiter ates in his appellate brief. T here fore , the re cord doe s not support appellant’s a ssertion that Bow ie fa iled to comply

with the notice re quirement a nd there by

rende red the November

2, 2004 jud g me nt v oid . T he re are no oth e r c ha lle ng e s to the va lid ity of the No ve mbe r 2 , 2 00 4 ju dgme nt. Be cause the Novembe r 2, 2004 judg ment is valid on its fac e, we need not c onsider appellant’ s contentions that Bow ie’s fa ilure to provide the Commi ssion with a c opy of the propose d judgme nt thirty day s befor e the September 20, 2004 judgme nt r ender ed that ear lier judg ment void. 2

Bow ie contends that we must remand this cause to the district court so that the district court c an approve an a

war d of attorne y ’s fe es to Bow ie’s attorne y . Howeve r, addingan aw ard of
atto rn e y ’s fe e s w ou ld a lte r t he jud g me nt. A pa

rt y wh o a sk s th is C ourt

to a lte r t he jud g me nt m

us t f ile a noti ce of appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1( c). The rec ord does not c ontain a notice of appea l from Bow ie
. A c c o r d in g ly , w e c ann o t c o n s id e r h is r e qu e s t f

o r r e ma n d f o r th e d is tr ic t c o urt t o aw ard attorney ’s fe es. Se eid .; see also CHCA East Houston, L.P. v. Hende rson , 9 9 S. W. 3 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 6 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14thDi st. ] 200 3, no pe t.) ; Mc Do na ld v . B oa t B ar

n , 9 9 4 S. W. 2 d

7 6 3 , 7 6 5 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 19 99 , n o p e t.) ; Davis v. Twin Cit y Fire I ns. Co. , 8 6 5 S. W. 2 d

2 3 1 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

1993), aff’d as modified on other grounds , Twin City Fi reIn s. Co. v . D av is , 904 S.W .2d 663 (Tex. 1995).4 We a ff ir m th e No ve mbe r 2 , 2 00 4 ju dgme nt.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Waldrop Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 16, 2006