NO. 07-12-00232-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
AUGUST 2, 2012
WENDELL H. TAYLOR, APPELLANT
v.
LUBBOCK REGIONAL MHMR & JI
TEXAS RISK MANAGEMENT AND
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, APPELLEES
FROM THE 99TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2012-501,151; HONORABLE WILLIAM C. SOWDER, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Wendell H. Taylor, appearing pro se, has filed a notice of appeal apparently
challenging two June 4, 2012 interlocutory orders of the trial court granting pleas to the
jurisdiction filed by appellees Lubbock Regional MHMR, JI Specialty Services, Inc.,
Texas Council Risk Management Fund, and Texas Department of Insurance-Workers’
Compensation Division.1 The clerk’s record has been filed. On our own motion we
seek clarification of the trial court’s orders. Cf. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d
191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (“If the appellate court is uncertain about the intent of the order, it
can abate the appeal to permit clarification by the trial court"); Disco Mach. of Liberal
Co. v. Payton, 900 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1995, writ denied) (abating for
clarification).
On April 16, 2012, Lubbock Regional MHMR, JI Specialty Services, and the Risk
Management Fund filed a combined answer and plea to the jurisdiction. On May 1,
2012, the Division also filed a plea to the jurisdiction.
In the first of its June 4 orders, the trial court decreed that the plea to the
jurisdiction of Lubbock Regional MHMR, JI Specialty Services, and the Risk
Management Fund was “in all things” granted. Taylor then was given twenty days to
amend his claim against Lubbock Regional MHMR according to specifications stated in
the order.
The order does not expressly state a disposition of the claims Taylor brought
against JI Specialty Services or the Risk Management Fund, nor does it expressly state
a disposition of the claims he brought against Lubbock Regional MHMR other than the
claim seeking judicial review of the decision of the appeals panel dated February 13,
2012, which the court ordered amended. Review of the record, including the combined
answer and plea to the jurisdiction filed by those defendants, does not assist our
1
Appellees are here identified as they were in the orders of the trial court made
the subject of this order.
2
understanding of the court’s order. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205-06 (may be
necessary for appellate court to look to the record to determine effect of trial court
order).
The court’s second June 4 order ordered and decreed that the Division’s plea to
the jurisdiction was “granted for a want of subject matter jurisdiction.” By its plea, the
Division sought an order dismissing the claims Taylor brought against it. It asserted
Taylor’s pleadings were an attempt to adjudicate claims of wrongdoing against the
Division that were not first presented and determined through the administrative
process. It added an assertion it is sovereignly immune from suit by virtue of its status
as a state agency.
Considered in light of the terms of the Division’s plea, the dispositive effect of the
court’s June 4 order granting its plea to the jurisdiction is more clear than its other order,
but the order nonetheless does not expressly state a disposition of all claims brought
against the Division.
Because we are uncertain about the intent of the court’s order, we abate the
appeal and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court shall, on notice
to Mr. Taylor and counsel for all appellees, modify the first order to clearly and
unequivocally state the disposition of claims asserted by Mr. Taylor against Lubbock
Regional MHMR, JI Specialty Services and the Risk Management Fund the court
intended by its grant of those parties’ plea to the jurisdiction.
3
We request clarification of the second June 4 order as well. If the court intended
to dismiss all claims plead against the Division, it shall modify the order to clearly and
unequivocally so state. If its intention was otherwise, it shall modify the order
accordingly.
The trial court shall include the modified orders in a supplemental clerk=s record
to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before August 31, 2012.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
4