Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, Barbara Wright, was injured in an automobile accident and sought medical treatment for her injuries from appellees, among others. On June 23, 2003, the trial court granted the appellee’s, James Douglas Hodde M.D., motion to dismiss appellant’s claims against him based upon insufficiencies in her Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Article 4590i medical expert report. Both before and after dismissal, Hodde requested the trial court grant him an award of attorney’s fees in accordance with Article 4590i, 13.01(a). On Aug. 21, 2003, the trial court granted Hodde attorney’s fees of $10,730.62. The remainder of appellant’s claims against the appellees, Guillermo Pino M.D. and Michael Sheen M.D., proceeded to a jury trial in which the jury found against appellant. However, the trial court awarded Pino $5,074.39 in court costs in accordance with Article 4590i, 13.01(a). HOLDING:As modified to $4,848.68, the award of taxable costs to Pino is affirmed. The court reverses the award of attorney’s fees to Hodde and renders a take-nothing judgment in favor of appellant on Hodde’s claim for attorney’s fees. In all other respects, the judgment in appellees’ favor is affirmed. In appellant’s first point she challenges the award of taxable court costs to Pino. Appellant claims several cost items were awarded to Pino that are not authorized as costs. The inclusion of specific items taxed as costs is a ministerial duty performed by the clerk. Correction of errors in specific items of costs is sought by a motion to retax costs. Because appellant filed no motion to modify or retax those costs, she cannot complain for the first time on appeal that the court erred in awarding some of those costs. However, because Pino agrees that the award for costs erroneously included $225.71 in charges, the court modifies the award of taxable costs by that amount to a total of $4,848.68. In appellant’s second point, she claims that Hodde was not entitled to an award for attorney’s fees, because his motion was filed under the wrong cause number. The appellant argues that, because the original summary judgment granted in Hodde’s favor was severed from this action and became final and appealable, and because her claim against Hodde was never reconsolidated with the remaining cause number after remand, Hodde is precluded from recovering his attorney’s fees. The court’s review of the clerk’s record, however, shows that Hodde’s motion for attorney’s fees, his amended motion for attorney’s fees, and his motion to dismiss were all filed under cause number 149-833-B, the present trial court cause number. Further, the trial court’s order granting Hodde a dismissal as well as its subsequent order granting him attorney’s fees were all signed and entered under cause number 149-833-B. The only complaint appellant made at the hearing on Hodde’s motion for attorney’s fees was that Hodde was not a party to the pending case, and that case had already been dismissed and was therefore final. The appellant complained of two things: 1. the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear Hodde’s claim for attorney’s fees in cause number 149-833-B, because he was no longer in the pending suit, and 2. because the suit against Hodde was final, his request for attorney’s fees was too late, because the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction had expired. However, appellant mistakenly assumed the dismissal and the pending attorney’s fees motions were filed under a different cause number when they were all actually filed and granted in the same cause number, cause number 149-833-B, the cause pending before the trial court and now here on appeal. Appellant never objected that the dismissal motion or the motion for attorney’s fees were filed in the wrong cause number. She complained that appellee Hodde was no longer a party to the pending action. She never complained of his right to file either motion in this cause number. Thus, any objection to the award of attorney’s fees because it was filed in the wrong case was waived by appellant. Additionally, appellant’s complaint about the trial court’s granting the attorney’s fees award beyond its plenary jurisdiction is not supported by the record. In appellant’s third point, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award of attorney’s fees to Hodde. Citing Arthur Anderson, she contends there is no evidence to support a showing of the experience, reputation, and ability of counsel; the nature and extent of the relationship with the client; the nature and extent of the legal services provided; the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; and the time limitations involved. Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997). Further, she contends that there was no evidence showing that the rates Hodde was charged were reasonable and customary for Wichita County. The only evidence in support of the attorney’s fees award mentioned in the entire appellate record is an affidavit that Hodde’s counsel references in the hearing on attorney’s fees and that is listed in appellant’s designation of items to be included in the clerk’s record. However, that affidavit was not attached to Hodde’s amended motion and was never offered into evidence. The court finds that there is no evidence in the record to support the award. OPINION:Terrie Livingston, J.; Livingston, Holman and Walker, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.