Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 20, 2016; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The court issued a rule for Louisiana Scrap Metal Recycling and Hartford Insurance Company to explain why their appeal should not be dismissed due to a lack of proper decretal language in the judgment. The appellants responded, but the court converted the appeal into a supervisory writ application and subsequently denied it on the merits. Melvin Guidry initiated a workers’ compensation claim against Louisiana Scrap on April 17, 2013, citing an injury sustained during employment. Louisiana Scrap responded on May 17, 2013, asserting that Guidry was terminated for cause. Guidry later amended his claim to include Hartford as a defendant. Subsequent filings involved allegations of fraud against Guidry and an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction raised by him, arguing that the workers’ compensation court could not adjudicate his termination. The OWC judge granted this exception on September 10, 2015, and a written judgment was signed on December 16, 2015. Louisiana Scrap and Hartford challenged this ruling through a writ application, which was denied by the court. The court found they had an adequate remedy through appeal and remanded the matter to the OWC for a judgment with proper decretal language to facilitate a correct appeal process.
An Amended Judgment was signed by the OWC judge in favor of plaintiff Melvin Guidry against defendants Louisiana Scrap Metal Recycling and Hartford Insurance Company, granting Guidry's Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Louisiana Scrap and Hartford appealed this ruling. Upon reviewing the appeal, the court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed due to the judgment's lack of proper decretal language. The defendants contended that the amended judgment contained the necessary language; however, the court disagreed. Citing Thomas v. Lafayette Parish School System, the court emphasized that a valid judgment must be clear and certain, naming the parties and the relief granted or denied without requiring reference to extrinsic documents. The court found the judgment unclear regarding whether the ruling dismissed all or only some of Guidry's claims, as it necessitated consulting additional pleadings. Consequently, the court deemed the judgment ambiguous and lacking appropriate decretal language, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and remand to the workers' compensation court for further proceedings. The court noted that similar cases have resulted in remands for revisions to ensure proper appealability, while also referencing La.Code Civ. P. art. 2164, which allows the appellate court to render any just and legal judgment on the appeal record.
The court has reviewed the complete appellate record and gained a clearer understanding of the case's procedural status compared to the earlier limited record. The workers' compensation system aims to expedite resolutions for injured workers, as established in Rhodes v. Lewis. In Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries v. Wallace, the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) found the claimant entitled to supplemental earnings benefits but ruled the claimant was not temporarily and totally disabled. Both parties appealed, but the court dismissed the appeals due to the OWC's deferral of attorney fees and penalties, deeming the judgment non-appealable. The court noted that one issue raised involved the severing of penalties and attorney fees for future determination. Previous rulings, including Rhodes and Smith v. UNR Home Products, confirm that appeals in workers’ compensation cases are premature if made before a final decision on all issues. The statute La.R.S. 23:1310.5 requires that all evidence be heard by the assigned workers’ compensation judge, and appeals should follow a complete resolution of the case to avoid piecemeal litigation. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as premature, given that the issues of penalties and attorney fees remain unresolved.
Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, 926 So.2d at 763 establishes that no appeal is permissible from the judgment granting an exception for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even if reformed for proper decretal language, as it does not lead to a complete adjudication of the workers’ compensation claim. Mr. Guidry’s compensation claim remains active, and all parties agree that the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWC) court has jurisdiction over it. Thus, the exception's ruling does not result in a dismissal of the entire action. Remanding the case for a modification of the ruling would unnecessarily delay the compensation claim. The ruling is characterized as a partial judgment and, under relevant jurisprudence, is not final or immediately appealable due to its context in a workers' compensation action. To promote judicial economy and fairness, the court converts the appeal into an application for supervisory writ, having determined that additional briefing is unnecessary.
The court referenced Miller v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., where it clarified that the issue of whether an employee was terminated for cause is a legal matter for district courts, not the OWC court. The OWC court correctly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the termination issue. Furthermore, the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its supporting memorandum were not adequately included in the record, with only a copy from the defendants' writ application being present. If the appeal were to be maintained, a supplemental record would need to be ordered. Additionally, the appellate record contained a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Exclude, but no Motion to Exclude is on record.
