Texas Workers' Comp. Ins. v. Mandlbauer

• Decision Date: 19 October 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-1204,99-1204
• Citation: 34 S.W.3d 909
• Parties: (Tex. 2000) Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund, Petitioner v. Mike Mandlbauer, Respondent
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 909

34 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2000)

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund, Petitioner v. Mike Mandlbauer, Respondent

No. 99-1204

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

October 19, 2000.

Rehearing Overruled January 18, 2001.

On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas

Per Curiam

We grant Respondent Mike Mandlbauer's Motion for Rehearing. We withdraw our opinion of August 24, 2000 and substitute the following opinion.

We consider two issues: (1) whether the claimant, Mike Mandlbauer, was entitled to jury instructions on "producing cause" in his workers' compensation case; and (2) whether the court of appeals' mandate properly assessed costs against the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund. We conclude that Mandlbauer was not entitled to such instructions because the jury charge did not mention producing cause. We also conclude that the court of appeals' mandate is ambiguous and contradicts our mandate that Mandlbauer pay all costs in this Court and the court of appeals on remand. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment, remand this cause to the court of appeals to consider Mandlbauer's remaining points of error, and order that Mandlbauer pay all costs for all appeals.

Mike Mandlbauer, an Apache Products Company employee, sustained a compensable back injury in September 1992. In November 1992, he had a magnetic resonance imaging scan (MRI) that revealed no bulging or herniated disks in his back. Mandlbauer left Apache in February 1993 and became involved in moving mobile homes. In November 1993, Mandlbauer saw his doctor, and the doctor discovered Mandlbauer had a herniated disk in the same place that was shown to have been normal in his MRI scan performed a year earlier.

The Fund denied any further medical treatment because the 1993 treatment was not related to his September 1992 injury. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission agreed with the Fund, and Mandlbauer appealed to the trial court. The trial court rendered judgment for the Fund in accordance with the jury verdict. Mandlbauer appealed and the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The Fund appealed to this Court. In a per curiam decision, we held that Mandlbauer did not have standing to complain about the trial court's failure to submit an inferential rebuttal instruction on sole cause. Accordingly, we reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to that court. See Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer, 988 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1999). Our mandate provided that the "Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund shall recover from Mike Mandlbauer, who shall pay, the costs in this Court and in the court of appeals."

The court of appeals, on remand, reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. See Mandlbauer v. Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund, 998 S.W.2d 939, 940 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1999, pet. granted). The court of appeals held that the trial court improperly refused to submit Mandlbauer's requested instructions on "producing cause." Mandlbauer, 998 S.W.2d at 940. It noted that the Texas Pattern Jury Charge defined producing cause, and that the TPJC provided questions for the jury on whether a general injury is compensable. See 2 Comm. On Pattern Jury Charges, State Bar of Tex., Texas Pattern Jury Charges PJC 20.01 (2d ed. 1989). The court of appeals also ordered that "all costs of the appeal shall be assessed against [the Fund]."

We first consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to submit Mandlbauer's requested instructions on producing cause. We conclude that it did not. The trial court has "considerable discretion to determine necessary and proper jury instructions." Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Knighten, 976 S.W.2d 674, 676 (Tex. 1998); see also Butler v. De La Cruz, 812 S.W.2d 422, 426 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied).

At trial, Mandlbauer requested that the trial court submit three instructions:

1) There can be more than one producing cause of disability. If you find that the injury of September 18, 1992, together with other injuries or events each contributed to the disability of Mike Mandlbauer, then the injury of September 18, 1992, was a producing cause of his disability.

2) There can be more than one producing cause of symptoms. If you find that the injury of September 18, 1992, together with other injuries or events each contributed to Mike Mandlbauer's symptoms, then the injury of September 18, 1992, was a producing cause of his...