Mark Edwards v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 15, 2014
• Docket: WCA-0014-0871
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 14-871

MARK EDWARDS

VERSUS

SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 3 PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 13-00259 SAM L. LOWERY, WORKERS COMPENSATION JUDGE

JIMMIE C. PETERS

JUDGE

Court composed of Judges Jimmie C. Peters, James T. Genovese, and John E. Conery.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.

James Edward Burks Attorney at Law Post Office Box 16067 Lake Charles, LA 70616 (337) 474-6106 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Mark Edwards John Joseph Rabalais Rabalais, Unland & Lorio 200 Caroline Court Covington, LA 70433 (985) 893-9900 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc.

Michelle A. Breaux Attorney at Law Post Office Box 747 Lake Charles, LA 70602 (337) 493-8442 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Mark Edwards

David Paul Bruchhaus Mudd & Bruchhaus 410 E. College Street Lake Charles, LA 70605 (337) 562-2327 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Mark Edwards PETERS, Judge.

The defendant in this workers’ compensation litigation, Southeastern Freight

Lines, Inc., moves to dismiss the appeal taken in this case by the plaintiff, Mark

Edwards. For the following reasons, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Edwards filed the instant workers’ compensation claim against

Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. (Southeastern) asserting that he sustained an

injury to his back and legs on October 24, 2012, while moving a piece of steel

during the course of his employment with Southeastern. As a result of the accident,

Southeastern’s workers’ compensation carrier paid temporary total disability

benefits to Mr. Edwards and authorized medical treatment. Subsequently,

Southeastern filed a motion for summary judgment seeking termination of his

benefits and reimbursement for benefits previously paid to Mr. Edwards. In its

motion, Southeastern asserted that pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1208, Mr. Edwards had

forfeited his right to receive workers’ compensation benefits because he had made

misrepresentations regarding his history of prior accidents, injuries, and workers’

compensation claims. Also, Southeastern filed a reconventional demand seeking

restitution for workers’ compensation benefits paid to Mr. Edwards, as well as

costs and attorney’s fees. Following a hearing, the workers’ compensation judge

(WCJ) granted Southeastern’s motion and dismissed Mr. Edwards’ suit based on

the court’s finding that Mr. Edwards had violated La.R.S. 23:1208. The WCJ

signed a judgment to that effect on November 6, 2013, and notice of judgment was

mailed on November 14, 2013.

On November 8, 2013, Mr. Edwards filed a motion to clarify the judgment

wherein he sought to have the WCJ specify the particular section of La.R.S.

23:1208 he was found to have violated. He followed this motion by filing a motion for new trial on November 19, 2013. On May 8, 2014, the WCJ signed a

judgment denying both of Mr. Edwards’ motions. The notice of judgment was

mailed on May 15, 2014, and on June 30, 2014, Mr. Edwards filed a motion for

appeal. The WCJ granted the appeal by an order signed on July 2, 2014.

The appeal record was lodged in this court on August 22, 2014, and in his

appeal, Mr. Edwards specifically states that he seeks to appeal the WCJ’s May 8,

2014 judgment. In its motion to dismiss the appeal, Southeastern asserts that the

May 8, 2014 judgment is a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment which is only

subject to appellate review via an application for supervisory writs and, therefore,

should be dismissed. Southeastern has also filed an answer to the instant appeal,

arguing therein that if, and only if, the underlying judgment of November 6, 2013,

is determined to be the subject of this appeal, then that judgment should be

amended to provide Southeastern with a reimbursement award for Mr. Edwards

having fraudulently received workers’ compensation benefits.

In considering Southeastern’s motion, we first note that La.Code Civ.P. art.

2083(C) provides that “[a]n interlocutory judgment is appealable only when

expressly provided by law.” Additionally, the ruling denying the motion for

clarification of the November 6, 2013 judgment is an interlocutory judgment

because it does not decide the merits of the litigation. See La.Code Civ.P. art.

1841. Furthermore, a judgment denying a motion for new trial is an interlocutory

judgment. McClure v. City of Pineville, 05-1460 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/06), 944

So.2d 805, writ denied, 07-0043 (La. 3/9/07), 949 So.2d 446. Finally, Mr.

Edwards has not asserted any express provision of the law that would cause him to

be able to maintain an appeal on the May 8, 2014 as allowed by La.Code Civ.P. art.

2083(C).

2 However, while we recognize that Mr. Edwards’ motion for appeal

expressly states that he seeks to appeal the May 8, 2014 judgment, we also note

that in cases in which the motion for appeal states that the appeal is being taken

only from the judgment on a motion for new trial but the appellant exhibits the

intent to appeal the judgment on the merits, this court has held that the appeal can,

nonetheless, be considered as an appeal of the judgment on the merits. McClure,

944 So.2d 805; Thompson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 95-258 (La.App. 3 Cir.

10/4/95), 663 So.2d 191. In the instant case, Mr. Edwards raises arguments in his

appellate brief which demonstrate that the judgment he actually seeks to have this

court review is the judgment of November 6, 2013. Inasmuch as Mr. Edwards has

demonstrated his intent to appeal the underlying summary judgment granted on the

merits of the case, we find that the appeal should be considered as an appeal of that

judgment. Therefore, we deny Southeastern’s motion to dismiss the appeal.