Richard v. Master Maintenance

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Richard v. Master Maintenance

985 So. 2d 148, 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 1708, 2008 La. App. LEXIS 531, 2008 WL 793391

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 26, 2008

DocketNo. 2007 CA 1708

StatusPublished

This text of 985 So. 2d 148 (Richard v. Master Maintenance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard v. Master Maintenance, 985 So. 2d 148, 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 1708, 2008 La. App. LEXIS 531, 2008 WL 793391 (La. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PETTIGREW, J.

pOn February 24, 2003, claimant, Ollizo Richard, filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation with the Office of Workers’ Compensation in which he asserted a claim for wage benefits and medical treatment as a result of an alleged chemical exposure accident on September 25, 1996.¹ In re[149]*149sponse, Mr. Richard’s employer, Master Maintenance and Construction Co. (“Master Maintenance”), filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription. The exception urged by Master Maintenance was granted by the workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) on May 5, 2004, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice. Mr. Richard did not appeal the dismissal of his suit.

Mr. Richard, appearing in proper person, thereafter, filed the instant claim for compensation with the Office of Workers’ Compensation, on August 17, 2006, wherein he again asserted a claim for wage benefits and medical treatment as a result of an alleged accident on September 25, 1996. Master Maintenance responded by fifing a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata. The exception urged by Master Maintenance was granted by the WCJ on March 30, 2007, once again resulting in a dismissal of Mr. Richard’s suit with prejudice. Following the dismissal of his suit, Mr. Richard filed the instant appeal.

On appeal, Mr. Richard argues that the defense of res judicata is predicated on a judgment that was rendered and signed in October 1999; and that the 1999 judgment was obtained by fraud and deceit.² In response, Master Maintenance asserts that the WCJ did not err in concluding that the court’s prior dismissal with prejudice, of the claim for compensation filed by Mr. Richard in 2003, precluded the fifing of a second claim for compensation by Mr. Richard in 2006, against the same party based on the identical cause of action. Master Maintenance further cites Dean v. The City of New Orleans, 05-1347 (La.App. 4 Or. 7/12/06), 936 So.2d 851 in support of its position.

Following a thorough review of the record in this matter, we find no error in the findings of the WCJ. Thus, we affirm the decision below in accordance with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(2), (4), (6), and (8), and assess all costs associated with this appeal against the claimant, Olfizo Richard.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PETTIGREW, J.

pOn February 24, 2003, claimant, Ollizo Richard, filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation with the Office of Workers’ Compensation in which he asserted a claim for wage benefits and medical treatment as a result of an alleged chemical exposure accident on September 25, 1996.¹ In re[149]*149sponse, Mr. Richard’s employer, Master Maintenance and Construction Co. (“Master Maintenance”), filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription. The exception urged by Master Maintenance was granted by the workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) on May 5, 2004, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice. Mr. Richard did not appeal the dismissal of his suit.

Mr. Richard, appearing in proper person, thereafter, filed the instant claim for compensation with the Office of Workers’ Compensation, on August 17, 2006, wherein he again asserted a claim for wage benefits and medical treatment as a result of an alleged accident on September 25, 1996. Master Maintenance responded by fifing a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata. The exception urged by Master Maintenance was granted by the WCJ on March 30, 2007, once again resulting in a dismissal of Mr. Richard’s suit with prejudice. Following the dismissal of his suit, Mr. Richard filed the instant appeal.

On appeal, Mr. Richard argues that the defense of res judicata is predicated on a judgment that was rendered and signed in October 1999; and that the 1999 judgment was obtained by fraud and deceit.² In response, Master Maintenance asserts that the WCJ did not err in concluding that the court’s prior dismissal with prejudice, of the claim for compensation filed by Mr. Richard in 2003, precluded the fifing of a second claim for compensation by Mr. Richard in 2006, against the same party based on the identical cause of action. Master Maintenance further cites Dean v. The City of New Orleans, 05-1347 (La.App. 4 Or. 7/12/06), 936 So.2d 851 in support of its position.

Following a thorough review of the record in this matter, we find no error in the findings of the WCJ. Thus, we affirm the decision below in accordance with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(2), (4), (6), and (8), and assess all costs associated with this appeal against the claimant, Olfizo Richard.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

985 So. 2d 148, 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 1708, 2008 La. App. LEXIS 531, 2008 WL 793391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-v-master-maintenance-lactapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack