Howard McClure v. City of Pineville

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 2, 2006
• Docket: WCA-0005-1460
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

05-1460

HOWARD T. MCCLURE

VERSUS

CITY OF PINEVILLE, ET AL.

********** APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 03-6950 JAMES BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Michael G. Sullivan, and James T. Genovese, Judges.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE DENIED.

Gregory E. Bodin Chase Tower South, 8th Floor Post Office Box 2471 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (225) 387-3221 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corporation

Randall B. Keiser Post Office Box 12358 Alexandria, LA 71315 (318) 443-6168 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Risk Management, Inc. SULLIVAN, Judge.

Defendant-appellant, Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corporation (LWCC),

moves to consolidate two appeals that are before this court. For the reasons given

below, we deny appellant’s motion to consolidate.

This case arises out of the workers’ compensation claim for a retired fireman.

When Howard McClure retired from the Pineville Fire Department, LWCC insured

the City of Pineville (the City) for workers’ compensation coverage. After McClure

retired and prior to his death, the City secured insurance coverage from the Louisiana

Municipal Risk Management Agency (LMRMA). Risk Management, Inc. (RMI) is

the administrator of claims for LMRMA.

Following Mr. McClure’s death, his widow, Mary McClure, filed a claim for

death benefits with Office of Workers’ Compensation. In her claim, Mrs. McClure

named the City, RMI, and LWCC as defendants. During the course of litigation, RMI

filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to have plaintiffs’ claims against it

dismissed. In support of RMI’s motion, it submitted an affidavit attesting to the fact

that no coverage between RMI and the City existed at the time of Mr. McClure’s

retirement. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion dismissing

plaintiffs’ claims against RMI.

Following the ruling, the City filed a motion for new trial and a third party

demand against RMI. The trial court denied the City’s motion for new trial and

granted RMI’s exception of no cause of action regarding the City’s third party

demand. The City filed an appeal seeking review of the rulings on the motion for

summary judgment, the motion for new trial, and the exception of no cause of action.

The appeal was assigned docket number 05-1460.

1 Meanwhile, the proceedings in the trial court moved forward without RMI.

After a trial on the merits, the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs and against the

City and LWCC. Both defendants appealed the judgment on the merits, and that

appeal has been assigned docket number 06-279. LWCC has filed this motion to

consolidate the two appeals, and the City has joined in the motion to consolidate.

RMI, on behalf of LMRMA, filed an opposition to the motion to consolidate. In its

opposition, RMI presented several reasons why this court should deny the motion to

consolidate the appeals.

Notwithstanding the arguments presented by RMI, this court expresses its own

reason for denying LWCC’s motion to consolidate. Namely, the issues presented in

each appeal are unrelated. Thus, hearing the appeals together would not be judicially

efficient, as LWCC suggests. The judgments challenged in 05-1460 are concerned

with the City’s third party demand against RMI and the dismissal of all claims against

RMI on summary judgment. On the other hand, the ruling challenged in 06-279 cast

the City and LWCC in judgment for death benefits and attorney fees. In short,

combining the two appeals will only confuse the issues in one or both of the appeals.

Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion to consolidate.