Silton Ardoin v. Gde Renovations, Inc.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 26, 2022
• Docket: WCA-0022-0580
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 22-580

SILTON ARDOIN

VERSUS

GDE RENOVATIONS, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 4 PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 14-05370 ANTHONY PAUL PALERMO, WORKERS COMPENSATION JUDGE

SHANNON J. GREMILLION

JUDGE

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, John E. Conery, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

MOTION TO CORRECT AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD GRANTED, IN PART; DENIED IN PART. Jason E. Wilson Kevin W. Fouquier, II Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr, & Smith 3861 Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Suite 300 Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 735-1760 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Granite State Insurance Company GDE Renovations, Inc.

Jennifer B. Valois The Barber Law Firm 111 Mercury Street Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 232-9894 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Silton Ardoin GREMILLION, Judge.

Appellant-Plaintiff, Silton Ardoin, Jr., has filed a Motion to Correct and

Supplement the Record in this matter. Appellees-Defendants, GDE Renovations, Inc.

and Granite State Insurance Company opposed the motion, in part. We grant the

motion, in part, and deny in part.

Appellant first seeks to supplement the record with all pleadings and orders

between 2014 and 2020. Appellant asserts that these documents are critical to the

issues on appeal, as they contain the original pleadings and service documents,

including the Order of Preliminary Default entered against Appellee, Employer K&C

Roofing.

Next, Appellant states that the appeal record Exhibit List needs to be corrected

to accurately reflect the admission of Appellees’ Trial Exhibits. The record Exhibit

List incorrectly lists Appellant’s trial exhibits 3 and 4 as not admitted into evidence

when the trial court admitted all of Appellant’s disputed exhibits into evidence,

including exhibits 3 and 4.

Additionally, Appellant maintains that the record Exhibit List needs to be

corrected regarding the proffered evidence. The record Exhibit List incorrectly lists

Appellee, GDE Renovations, Inc., as having a proffer when the transcript does not

reflect that GDE Renovations, Inc. proffered any evidence. Also, the transcript

indicates that Appellant proffered the recorded statement of Calvin Coleman. The

record as prepared does not reflect that Appellant’s proffered exhibit, the recorded

statement of Calvin Coleman, was admitted into evidence in the court’s oral ruling.

As reflected in the court’s oral ruling, all of Appellant’s disputed evidence was

admitted into the record, including the proffered recorded statement of Calvin

Coleman.

Next, Appellant asserts that the following errors exist in the record Minutes:

2 1. The minutes of February 5, 2021, indicate that counsel for Appellant,

Jennifer Valois, was not present for the hearing. The transcript, however, reflects that

Jennifer Valois appeared for the hearing.

2. The minutes of September 23, 2021, incorrectly leave out Appellant’s

proffer of Calvin Coleman’s recorded statement. The minutes also incorrectly add a

proffer to the exhibits of Appellee, GDE Renovations, Inc.

3. The minutes of January 7, 2022, incorrectly stated that counsel were present

for the oral ruling. Counsel were not notified of an oral ruling and were not present in

the court room during the oral ruling.

Appellant also explains that during an inspection of the actual court record

maintained in the Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 4, counsel for Appellant

observed a copy of a “Free Mugshot Website” printout containing Appellant’s name

and identifying information dated September 8, 2020, three days before a September

11, 2020 hearing to dismiss his claim. Appellant asks this court to order the Office of

Workers' Compensation, District 4 Clerk of Court, to include the printout in the

appeal record, just as it appears in the official trial court record.

Lastly, Appellant seeks to supplement the record with a copy of the records

request submitted by Appellant’s counsel to the Office of Workers’ Compensation

requesting production of any judgment or orders of preliminary default, along with the

Office of Workers’ Compensation’s response indicating that no matching orders were

entered in this case. However, upon Appellant counsel’s inspection of the actual court

record, the record contained a signed order of preliminary default. The records

department at the Office of Workers’ Compensation had provided incorrect

information.

In opposition to the Motion to Supplement and Correct the Record, Appellees

object to Appellant’s request to supplement the record with the “Free Mugshot

Website” printout. Appellees state that in Appellant’s motion, he makes a connection

3 that the mugshot was printed three days before a hearing to dismiss Appellant’s claim.

However, Appellant’s claim was dismissed at the hearing, and the denial of the

motion to dismiss was not appealed. While it does not appear that either party filed

this document in the record at the hearing, Appellees are positive that the document

was not offered, introduced, or admitted into evidence for the purpose of this trial. As

such, Appellees conclude that it is inappropriate to order the record supplemented

with documents that have never been offered, introduced, or admitted into evidence.

Niemann v. Crosby Development Co., L.L.C., 11-1337 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/3/12), 92

So.3d 1039. Moreover, because the mugshot was not offered, introduced, or admitted

into evidence, appellees maintain that appellant would be unable to comply with the

required Rule 32 certificate if the document is made a part of the record. Appellees

urge that the document has no relevance to the judgment rendered at the conclusion of

trial.

Additionally, Appellees strongly disagree with Appellant’s mischaracterization

of the investigation report as the “recorded statement of Calvin Coleman.” Appellees

maintain that it is an unsigned report of an investigator that spoke to Mr. Coleman.

Further, it is not a transcript or Mr. Coleman’s sworn testimony. Appellees urge that

it is hearsay.

We hereby order that the record be supplemented with all pleadings and orders

between 2014 and 2020, and with Appellant’s request for production of any judgment

or orders of preliminary default, along with the court’s response indicating that no

matching orders were entered in this case.

We also order that exhibit list found in the appeal record be corrected to reflect

1) the admission of all Appellee’s Trial Exhibits, including exhibits 3 and 4; 2) that

GDE Renovations did not proffer any evidence; and 3) that Appellant’s proffered

exhibit, the statement of Calvin Coleman, was admitted into evidence.

4 Additionally, we order that the minutes in the record be corrected as follows: 1)

the minutes of February 5, 2021 should reflect that Jennifer Valois, counsel for

Appellant, appeared for the hearing; 2) the minutes of September 23, 2021, should

reflect that the statement of Calvin Coleman was proffered by Appellant, and omit the

statement that a proffer was made by Appellee, GDE Renovations, Inc.; and 3) the

minutes of January 7, 2022, should reflect that counsel were not present for the oral

ruling.

We deny Appellant’s request to supplement the record with the “Free Mugshot

Website” printout as the document was not offered, introduced, or admitted into

evidence at trial.

MOTION TO CORRECT AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD GRANTED, IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.