STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
14-490
ELIZA HUNTER
VERSUS
RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
**********
APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 13-07934 JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE
PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE
Court composed of J. David Painter, James T. Genovese, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Stacy Christopher Auzenne Auzenne Law Firm Post Office Box 11817 Alexandria, Louisiana 71315-1817 (318) 880-0087 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Rapides Parish School Board Claims Administrative Services
Eliza Hunter In Proper Person 1134 Madison Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 In Proper Person: Plaintiff/Appellant KEATY, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant, Eliza Hunter, in proper
person, appeals a judgment rendered by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ).
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Eliza Hunter allegedly injured her low back on March 20, 2001, when she
missed a step and fell at the school where she worked. She later filed a workers’
compensation suit against her employer, the Rapides Parish School Board (RPSB),
and Claims Administrative Services (CAS), RPSB’s third-party administrator. In
October of 2010, Ms. Hunter and the RPSB agreed to settle the matter in return for
the RPSB establishing a Medicare Set-Aside Account (MSA) valued at $79,937.77
on Ms. Hunter’s behalf and paying Ms. Hunter the lump sum of $19,000.00. The
parties then presented the WCJ with a Joint Petition and Compromise Settlement
Agreement. According to the agreement, the RPSB had previously paid
Ms. Hunter indemnity benefits totaling $63,786.80 and medical benefits totaling
$80,792.54. The WCJ signed an order approving the agreement on October 12,
2010. The RPSB submitted the proposed MSA to the Centers for Medicare
Services (CMS) for approval. CMS rejected the proposed MSA, instead requiring
that the MSA be valued at $94,265.00. The RPSB opted to pay Ms. Hunter’s
medical expenses as they accrued rather than fund the $94,265.00 MSA, and the
attorney for the RPSB sent a certified letter to Ms. Hunter notifying her of its
decision.
On November 6, 2013, Ms. Hunter filed a Form 1008 Disputed Claim for
Compensation against the RPSB and CAS seeking to force them to establish the
$94,265.00 MSA proposed by CMS. The RPSB and CAS responded by filing an exception of no cause of action and/or no right of action.1 After a hearing, the
WCJ granted the exception and dismissed Ms. Hunter’s 1008 by judgment dated
February 3, 2014. She timely filed a “REQUEST FOR APPEAL” of the judgment
“rendered [on] January 27, 2014 OF NO CAUSE of action and/or NO RIGHT of
action.”
On June 23, 2014, Ms. Hunter filed a pleading with this court entitled
“BRIEF REQUESTING AN ORDER TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT.” Therein, she
seeks to have this court enforce the order signed by the WCJ on October 12, 2010,
approving the Joint Petition and Compromise Settlement Agreement entered into
by Ms. Hunter, the RPSB, and CAS. In her brief, Ms. Hunter fails to assign any
error in either the October 12, 2010 order or the February 3, 2014 judgment.
Instead, she reviews the procedural history of this matter and alleges that CAS
“ceased paying [her] medical expenses” in 2009. She then alleges that CAS denied
her request to authorize one of its approved pharmacies to approve a prescription
written by her primary care physician in March of 2014. Three exhibits are
attached to Ms. Hunter’s brief.
DISCUSSION
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 12.4(A)(5) mandates that the
appellant’s brief “shall contain” “assignments of alleged errors.” In addition,
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2‒12.4(B)(1) requires that “[a] copy of
the judgment . . . complained of . . . shall be appended to the brief of the
appellant.” As mentioned previously, the judgment which Ms. Hunter attached to
the brief she filed with this court seeks to have this court review and enforce an
1 “In Louisiana law there exists no single exception of no right and/or no cause of action. They are separate and distinct exceptions, each serving a particular purpose and each following particular procedural rules.” Mercier v. Flugence, 408 So.2d 52, 53 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1981).
2 October 12, 2010 order for which the appeal delays have long expired. See
La.Code Civ.P. arts. 2087 and 2123. In addition, Ms. Hunter failed to include any
assignments of error in her brief. Nevertheless, “the courts of this State have
considered [the merits of] briefs in improper form when filed by pro se claimants.”
Hale v. Labor Ready, 08-719, p. 1 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/08), 999 So.2d 293, 295.
Because Ms. Hunter timely appealed the February 3, 2014 judgment granting
RPSB’s and CAS’s exception of no cause of action and/or no right of action, we
will “consider[] the merits of her appeal despite the improper form of her appellant
brief.” Id.
“Although the technical rules of evidence and procedure are relaxed in
workers’ compensation hearings, an appellate court is bound by the record before it
on appeal.” Bourque v. Transit Mix, 13-1390, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/14), __
So.3d __, __. “[A]ppellate courts are courts of record which neither can receive
new evidence nor review evidence that is not in the record. Evidence attached to
memoranda and not properly and officially offered and introduced does not
constitute evidence and cannot be considered, even if it is physically in the record.”
Mouton v. Hebert, 13-755, 13-756, 13-757, 13-758, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/18/13)
(unpublished opinion) (citations omitted). Accordingly, this court is precluded
from considering the exhibits attached to Ms. Hunter’s appellant brief to the extent
that the information contained therein is not otherwise a part of the appellate record.
In Williamson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 12-148 (La.App. 3 Cir.
6/6/12), 92 So.3d 1218, this court affirmed, as amended, a judgment rendered by a
WCJ in favor of a workers’ compensation claimant awarding him penalties and
attorney fees after his employer failed to provide him with the money to purchase a
MSA within thirty days of the approval of the parties’ settlement by the Office of
3 Workers’ Compensation (OWC). We noted that “there was no requirement to
obtain CMS’s approval of the settlement agreement. Quite the opposite, Paragraph
(4)(B) states that the ‘[e]mployee understands that the receipt of this workers’
compensation settlement without CMS pre-approval may result in a loss of
Medicare benefits for the work-related injury.’” Id. at 1222. In Williamson, 92
So.3d at 1221-22, we distinguished Harrelson v. Arcadia, 10-1647 (La.App. 1 Cir.
6/10/11), 68 So.3d 663, writ denied, 11-1531 (La. 10/7/11), 71 So.3d 316, as
follows:
[I]n Harrelson, the first circuit found that the settlement agreement required that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approve the amount of funding prior to payment. The first circuit held that the right to enforce the conditional obligation to fund the MSA account contained in the settlement agreement did not arise until the fulfillment of the suspensive condition when CMS approved the MSA funding. The first circuit held that penalties for nonpayment within thirty days were not owed because nonpayment was the result of conditions over which the employer had no control citing La.R.S. 23:1201(G).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
14-490
ELIZA HUNTER
VERSUS
RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
**********
APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 13-07934 JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE
PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE
Court composed of J. David Painter, James T. Genovese, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Stacy Christopher Auzenne Auzenne Law Firm Post Office Box 11817 Alexandria, Louisiana 71315-1817 (318) 880-0087 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Rapides Parish School Board Claims Administrative Services
Eliza Hunter In Proper Person 1134 Madison Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 In Proper Person: Plaintiff/Appellant KEATY, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant, Eliza Hunter, in proper
person, appeals a judgment rendered by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ).
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Eliza Hunter allegedly injured her low back on March 20, 2001, when she
missed a step and fell at the school where she worked. She later filed a workers’
compensation suit against her employer, the Rapides Parish School Board (RPSB),
and Claims Administrative Services (CAS), RPSB’s third-party administrator. In
October of 2010, Ms. Hunter and the RPSB agreed to settle the matter in return for
the RPSB establishing a Medicare Set-Aside Account (MSA) valued at $79,937.77
on Ms. Hunter’s behalf and paying Ms. Hunter the lump sum of $19,000.00. The
parties then presented the WCJ with a Joint Petition and Compromise Settlement
Agreement. According to the agreement, the RPSB had previously paid
Ms. Hunter indemnity benefits totaling $63,786.80 and medical benefits totaling
$80,792.54. The WCJ signed an order approving the agreement on October 12,
2010. The RPSB submitted the proposed MSA to the Centers for Medicare
Services (CMS) for approval. CMS rejected the proposed MSA, instead requiring
that the MSA be valued at $94,265.00. The RPSB opted to pay Ms. Hunter’s
medical expenses as they accrued rather than fund the $94,265.00 MSA, and the
attorney for the RPSB sent a certified letter to Ms. Hunter notifying her of its
decision.
On November 6, 2013, Ms. Hunter filed a Form 1008 Disputed Claim for
Compensation against the RPSB and CAS seeking to force them to establish the
$94,265.00 MSA proposed by CMS. The RPSB and CAS responded by filing an exception of no cause of action and/or no right of action.1 After a hearing, the
WCJ granted the exception and dismissed Ms. Hunter’s 1008 by judgment dated
February 3, 2014. She timely filed a “REQUEST FOR APPEAL” of the judgment
“rendered [on] January 27, 2014 OF NO CAUSE of action and/or NO RIGHT of
action.”
On June 23, 2014, Ms. Hunter filed a pleading with this court entitled
“BRIEF REQUESTING AN ORDER TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT.” Therein, she
seeks to have this court enforce the order signed by the WCJ on October 12, 2010,
approving the Joint Petition and Compromise Settlement Agreement entered into
by Ms. Hunter, the RPSB, and CAS. In her brief, Ms. Hunter fails to assign any
error in either the October 12, 2010 order or the February 3, 2014 judgment.
Instead, she reviews the procedural history of this matter and alleges that CAS
“ceased paying [her] medical expenses” in 2009. She then alleges that CAS denied
her request to authorize one of its approved pharmacies to approve a prescription
written by her primary care physician in March of 2014. Three exhibits are
attached to Ms. Hunter’s brief.
DISCUSSION
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 12.4(A)(5) mandates that the
appellant’s brief “shall contain” “assignments of alleged errors.” In addition,
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2‒12.4(B)(1) requires that “[a] copy of
the judgment . . . complained of . . . shall be appended to the brief of the
appellant.” As mentioned previously, the judgment which Ms. Hunter attached to
the brief she filed with this court seeks to have this court review and enforce an
1 “In Louisiana law there exists no single exception of no right and/or no cause of action. They are separate and distinct exceptions, each serving a particular purpose and each following particular procedural rules.” Mercier v. Flugence, 408 So.2d 52, 53 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1981).
2 October 12, 2010 order for which the appeal delays have long expired. See
La.Code Civ.P. arts. 2087 and 2123. In addition, Ms. Hunter failed to include any
assignments of error in her brief. Nevertheless, “the courts of this State have
considered [the merits of] briefs in improper form when filed by pro se claimants.”
Hale v. Labor Ready, 08-719, p. 1 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/08), 999 So.2d 293, 295.
Because Ms. Hunter timely appealed the February 3, 2014 judgment granting
RPSB’s and CAS’s exception of no cause of action and/or no right of action, we
will “consider[] the merits of her appeal despite the improper form of her appellant
brief.” Id.
“Although the technical rules of evidence and procedure are relaxed in
workers’ compensation hearings, an appellate court is bound by the record before it
on appeal.” Bourque v. Transit Mix, 13-1390, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/14), __
So.3d __, __. “[A]ppellate courts are courts of record which neither can receive
new evidence nor review evidence that is not in the record. Evidence attached to
memoranda and not properly and officially offered and introduced does not
constitute evidence and cannot be considered, even if it is physically in the record.”
Mouton v. Hebert, 13-755, 13-756, 13-757, 13-758, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/18/13)
(unpublished opinion) (citations omitted). Accordingly, this court is precluded
from considering the exhibits attached to Ms. Hunter’s appellant brief to the extent
that the information contained therein is not otherwise a part of the appellate record.
In Williamson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 12-148 (La.App. 3 Cir.
6/6/12), 92 So.3d 1218, this court affirmed, as amended, a judgment rendered by a
WCJ in favor of a workers’ compensation claimant awarding him penalties and
attorney fees after his employer failed to provide him with the money to purchase a
MSA within thirty days of the approval of the parties’ settlement by the Office of
3 Workers’ Compensation (OWC). We noted that “there was no requirement to
obtain CMS’s approval of the settlement agreement. Quite the opposite, Paragraph
(4)(B) states that the ‘[e]mployee understands that the receipt of this workers’
compensation settlement without CMS pre-approval may result in a loss of
Medicare benefits for the work-related injury.’” Id. at 1222. In Williamson, 92
So.3d at 1221-22, we distinguished Harrelson v. Arcadia, 10-1647 (La.App. 1 Cir.
6/10/11), 68 So.3d 663, writ denied, 11-1531 (La. 10/7/11), 71 So.3d 316, as
follows:
[I]n Harrelson, the first circuit found that the settlement agreement required that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approve the amount of funding prior to payment. The first circuit held that the right to enforce the conditional obligation to fund the MSA account contained in the settlement agreement did not arise until the fulfillment of the suspensive condition when CMS approved the MSA funding. The first circuit held that penalties for nonpayment within thirty days were not owed because nonpayment was the result of conditions over which the employer had no control citing La.R.S. 23:1201(G).
According to the transcript of the January, 27, 2014 hearing on RPSB’s and
CAS’s exception, Ms. Hunter admitted that she knew that the RPSB was going to
send the settlement agreement to CMS for approval. She further acknowledged
that there was nothing in the settlement paperwork obligating the RPSB to fund a
more expensive MSA if CMS did not approve the settlement that she and the
RPSB had signed.
“A ‘judgment of a trial court is presumed correct, absent any record
evidence indicating the contrary.’” Julien v. Dynamic Indus., Inc., 10-520, p. 9
(La.App. 3 Cir. 11/3/10), 52 So.3d 174, 180 (quoting Williams v. Williams, 07-541,
p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/31/07), 968 So.2d 1234, 1239). “[T]he manifest error
standard of appellate review applies in workers[’] compensation cases[,] and great
4 deference is accorded to the [workers’ compensation judge’s] factual findings and
reasonable evaluations of credibility.” Bracey v. City of Alexandria, 13-16, p. 3
(La.App. 3 Cir. 6/5/13), 115 So.3d 1211, 1215, writ denied, 13-1934 (La. 11/8/13),
125 So.3d 455 (quoting Central Lumber Co. v. Duhon, 03-620, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir.
11/12/03), 860 So.2d 591, 593, writ denied, 04-315 (La. 4/2/04), 869 So.2d 880).
Ms. Hunter has failed to point to any error in the judgment granting the
exception of no cause of action and/or no right of action filed by RPSB and CAS,
dismissing Ms. Hunter’s claims against it with prejudice. Accordingly, the
judgment is “presumed correct.” Julien, 52 So.3d at 180. After thoroughly
reviewing the record, we conclude that the jurisprudence supports the February 3,
2014 judgment.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment rendered in favor of the Rapides
Parish School Board, granting its exception of no cause of action and/or no right of
action and dismissing Eliza Hunter’s claims is affirmed. All costs of this
proceeding are assessed against Eliza Hunter.