 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board v. Edwards12/15/2004
of the agency's actions pursuant to well established principles of judicial review.
Kelty, 633 So. 2d at 1218-1219.
The Kelty decision was followed in Bijou v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation, 95-3074 (La. 9/5/96), 679 So. 2d 893, 898, wherein a plaintiff who received a favorable trial court judgment finding him in need of future medical care and related benefits was directed, in accordance with Kelty, supra, to make a claim to the PCFOB for further action and recovery of his future medical care claim. Likewise, in the instant case, any claims for future medical care and related benefits on behalf of Alexander Lashley would first have to be brought before the PCFOB.
In Bridgers v. Southwest Louisiana Hosp. Assoc., 2001-0534 (La. App. 3d Cir. 11/7/01),799 So. 2d 1253, writ denied, 2001-3220 (La. 2/08/02), 809 So. 2d 138, a plaintiff who was awarded future medical expenses sought payment from the PCFOB of expenses incurred. The PCFOB failed to pay the full amount of the expenses, so the plaintiff filed a rule for payment and attorney fees in the district court which rendered the final judgment. The PCFOB asserted an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that it had exclusive jurisdiction over all claims for future medical expenses. The trial court's denial of the exception was affirmed on appeal on the basis of the grant of continuing jurisdiction provided by La. R.S. 40:1299.43(E)(1). The court agreed that the PCFOB had exclusive jurisdiction over all claims for future medical care and found that the plaintiff had filed a claim with the PCFOB, which failed to pay the entire claim. Once the PCFOB acted on the claim, the district court, through its continuing jurisdiction, had subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter.
Edwards argues that the trial court has jurisdiction in accordance with our prior opinion in Edwards v. St. Francis Medical Center, 25,105 (La. App. 2d Cir. 9/22/93), 623 So. 2d 1387. In Edwards, we addressed a claim for payment for custodial care rendered by Lashley's grandparents and ordered that the trial court would maintain continuing jurisdiction to review future awards for custodial care. As the issues in this matter do not involve claims for custodial care payments, Edwards has no application.
The PCFOB correctly argues that it has original subject matter jurisdiction over claims for Lashley's future medical care and related benefits. The claims asserted by Edwards are the type which must first be presented to the PCFOB. Once the PCFOB renders a decision, its decision is subject to court review as in Bridgers, supra. However, this record does not contain any evidence as to whether the claims asserted in Edwards' reconventional demand have been made with the PCFOB and whether the PCFOB has made any decision on the claims. In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis for the trial court's denial of the PCFOB's exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that ruling is hereby vacated.
The PCFOB argues that venue is only proper in East Baton Rouge Parish under the provisions of La. R.S. 13:5104, which designates venue in suits against certain public entities. Under La. R.S. 13:5104, venue for suits against the state, state agencies, and political subdivisions exists "in the parish in which the cause of action arises." Moreover, the statutory venue is mandatory but waivable. Franques v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury, 93-1625 (La. 10/1/93), 625 So. 2d 157. In this case, the cause of action arises in Ouachita Parish where Lashley resides and where he has need for future medical care and related benefits. Accordingly, we find no merit to the PCFOB's argument that venue is only prope
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|