 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holmes v. Lee9/28/2001
d (A)(2)(b) together leads to the conclusion that the legislature intended that claims be filed with the Division of Administration through the board. We conclude that within the context of the last sentence of La. R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(2)(a), the PCF does not act as an agency or entity other than the Division of Administration. Therefore, we hold that a request for review is deemed filed with the Division of Administration for purposes of suspension or interruption of prescription on a medical malpractice claim, as set forth in La. R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(2)(a), when it is filed with the board in compliance with La. R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(2)(b).
DECREE
For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED at the cost of appellee and REMANDED back to the trial court for further proceedings.
KOSTELKA, J., concurring
There is nothing ambiguous about the last sentence of La. R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(2)(a). Regardless of the procedure for filing with the "board," the statutory language is clear that with regard to the issue of suspension or interruption of prescription, only a filing with the Division of Administration will suffice. However, there are ambiguities in the overall statute which can only be addressed by the Legislature. This court comes close to legislating in this opinion and in Patty v. Christus Health Northern Louisiana d/b/a Christus Schumpert, 34,871 (La. App. 2d Cir. 8/22/01), ____ So. 2d ____ and Collins v. Sisters of Charity of Incarnate Word, 34,897 (La. App. 2d Cir. 8/22/01), ____ So. 2d ____. However, agreeing that where ambiguity exists, the courts should favor maintaining rather than barring an action, I concur.
|