Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauer

34 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2000) · Supreme Court of Texas · January 18, 2001 · No. No. 99-1204

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit requested producing-cause instructions because the pleadings, evidence, and jury charge addressed causation in terms of whether the injury resulted in the claimed condition. The court also held that the court of appeals' mandate concerning appellate costs was ambiguous, reversed the court of appeals' judgment, and remanded for consideration of the claimant's remaining points of error. The court ordered the claimant to pay all costs for all appeals.

Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
January 18, 2001
Docket number
No. 99-1204
Procedural posture
The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund sought review of a court of appeals judgment that reversed a trial-court judgment for the Fund and remanded for a new trial based on the refusal to submit producing-cause instructions. The Supreme Court of Texas granted rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, reversed the court of appeals' judgment, and remanded for consideration of Mandlbauer's remaining points of error.
Standard of review
A trial court's refusal to submit a requested jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. A requested instruction must be reasonably necessary to enable the jury to render a proper verdict, assist the jury, accurately state the law, and be supported by the pleadings and evidence.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas; precedential.
Parties
Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mike Mandlbauer
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

workers compensationjury instructionsappellate procedurecostsstandard of review

Practice areas

workers compensationcivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to submit Mandlbauer's requested producing-cause jury instructions when the jury charge submitted causation in terms of whether the condition resulted from the injury.
  2. Whether the court of appeals' mandate assessing all appellate costs against the Fund was ambiguous and inconsistent with the Supreme Court's prior mandate requiring Mandlbauer to pay all costs in the Supreme Court and court of appeals.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to submit the requested producing-cause instructions because producing cause was not pleaded or tried as the theory of the case, the jury charge did not use that term, and the charge instead submitted causation in terms of whether the condition resulted from the injury.
  2. The court of appeals' mandate assessing 'all costs of the appeal' against the Fund was ambiguous because it could include costs that the Supreme Court's prior mandate had ordered Mandlbauer to pay. Mandlbauer was ordered to pay all costs for all appeals.

Key quotations

It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to define a term not used in the charge. (34 S.W.3d at 912)
Our judgment today awards all costs against Mandlbauer for all appeals. (34 S.W.3d at 912)

Factual background

Mike Mandlbauer sustained a compensable back injury while employed by Apache Products Company in September 1992. An MRI in November 1992 showed no bulging or herniated disks. After leaving Apache and later becoming involved in moving mobile homes, Mandlbauer was found in November 1993 to have a herniated disk at the same location, and the Fund denied further medical treatment on the ground that it was unrelated to the 1992 injury.

Procedural history

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission ruled for the Fund after it denied further medical treatment as unrelated to Mandlbauer's earlier compensable injury. The trial court rendered judgment for the Fund in accordance with the jury verdict. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, and on remand again reversed and remanded based on the trial court's refusal to submit producing-cause instructions; it also assessed appellate costs against the Fund. The Supreme Court had previously reversed and remanded on a standing issue, then granted rehearing to address the producing-cause instructions and the assessment of costs.

Remand instructions

Remand to the court of appeals to consider Mandlbauer's remaining points of error. Mandlbauer must pay all costs for all appeals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…