Ray A. Ardoin v. Swdi

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 2, 2005
• Docket: WCA-0005-0334
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

05-334

RAY A. ARDOIN

VERSUS

SWDI

**********

APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 04-6529 & 04-6533 JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

OSWALD A. DECUIR JUDGE

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Oswald A. Decuir, and Marc T. Amy, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Anthony C. Dupre Attorney at Law P. O. Drawer F Ville Platte, LA 70586 (337) 363-3804 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Ray A. Ardoin

Wade A. Langlois, III Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins & Gremillion, L.L.C. 401 Whitney Avenue, Suite 500 Gretna, La 70056 (504) 362-2466 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: SWDI DECUIR, Judge.

At issue in this workers’ compensation case is an exception of improper venue.

The exception was maintained by the judge for District 2 of the Office of Workers’

Compensation, which district is headquartered in Rapides Parish and encompasses

Evangeline Parish where the claimant now resides. The claimant appeals the ruling

of the OWC judge, and for the following reasons, we affirm.

The claimant, Ray Ardoin, filed two disputed claims for compensation against

his employer, SWDI, Inc., a garbage collecting contractor doing business in

Lafourche Parish. The first claim resulted from an accident which occurred on June

16, 2003, and the second stemmed from an accident on August 13, 2003, both in

Lafourche Parish. At the time of both accidents, Ardoin was a resident of Lafourche

Parish; the parties indicate he was in the custody of the Louisiana Department of

Corrections and was participating in a work release program with SWDI. He was

housed in a corrections facility in Raceland. The parties further indicate that Ardoin

was released from state custody shortly after the accidents and returned to his lifelong

home in Evangeline Parish.

The Workers’ Compensation Act contains venue provisions at La.R.S.

23:1310.4, which provides in pertinent part:

A. (1) At the time a claim is initiated with the director, the claimant shall elect the situs of necessary hearings by the workers’ compensation judge.

(2) If the claimant is a domiciliary of the state of Louisiana, he shall be required to elect either the judicial district of the parish of his domicile at the time he sustained his injury, the judicial district of the parish where the injury occurred, or the judicial district of the parish of the principal place of business of the employer.

....

B. After the election has been made as provided above, all future hearings affecting the claimant’s case shall be held in the workers’ compensation district so designated unless the workers’ compensation judge, upon agreement by the claimant and the employer, shall transfer such cause for hearing to any other workers’ compensation district agreed upon. In addition, hearings may be held in any workers’ compensation district if the workers’ compensation judge determines that good cause has been shown.

In this appeal, the parties have focused their arguments on the domicile of the

claimant at the time of the accidents. Ardoin contends that while he resided in

Lafourche Parish during his incarceration, his domicile remained in Evangeline

Parish. The disputed claims for compensation filed by Ardoin list his address as

Evangeline Parish, but both identify his place of residence at the time of the accidents

as Lafourche Parish. In briefs to the OWC and to this court, Ardoin asserts that he

never intended to change his domicile when he was involuntarily sent to Lafourche

Parish, citing bank accounts, voter registration, and divorce proceedings all in

Evangeline Parish, albeit without evidentiary proof. Ardoin relies on jurisprudence

which holds there is a presumption “that the previously established domicile of the

person, or his domicile of origin, has not been changed. Succession of Barger, 217

So.2d 779 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1969).” LaFleur v. Seaboard Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 296

So.2d 860, 863 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974), writ refused, 300 So.2d 185 (La.1974).

To the contrary, SWDI references the longstanding jurisprudential rule that a

person’s domicile is presumed to be in the place where he resides, citing Alter v.

Waddill, 20 La.Ann. 246 (1868). In this case, the place of residence was Lafourche

Parish as indicated on the claims filed by Ardoin. SWDI suggests that the domicile

of an inmate is chosen by the Department of Corrections and is the parish in which

he is incarcerated, not the parish to which he will return upon release. SWDI relies

on La.R.S. 13:3237, which provides that an inmate may be sued at the place of his

“former domicile,” language indicating that an inmate obtains a new domicile upon

incarceration.

The OWC judge reached the following conclusions:

2 [C]onsidering that Mr. Ardoin was incarcerated [and] in a work- release program at the time that the accident occurred, it actually did not occur in the parish served by the district of this Court, and the place where Mr. Ardoin was housed and had been, apparently, housed for a considerable period of time was not in the district of this Court. This Court would order this matter transferred to the District 09 and he can proceed with his claim there. The accident happened there. The witnesses are apparently there. I don’t see where it [would] work any hardship on Mr. Ardoin to continue pursuing his claim in District 09.

The OWC judge did not make a factual finding as to Ardoin’s domicile.

Indeed, the court was presented with no evidence of domicile; rather, references were

made only as to residence at the time of the accidents and at the time the claims were

filed. However, we find such evidence unnecessary to a determination of proper

venue in this instance. Our review of these proceedings reveals no error in the

conclusion reached below. The OWC judge was authorized to transfer this case to

any other district in the state under La.R.S. 23:1310.4(B), which provides that

“hearings may be held in any workers’ compensation district if the workers’

compensation judge determines that good cause has been shown.” The judge was

satisfied that good cause was shown for the transfer of this case. We find no manifest

error in this conclusion.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment rendered by the Office of Workers’

Compensation ordering the transfer of this matter to District 9 is hereby affirmed.

Costs of this appeal are assessed to the claimant, Ray Ardoin.