Earl Lee Scott and Felicia A. Scott v. James Ray Roberts

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 04-953 consolidated with CW 04-721

EARL LEE SCOTT AND FELICIA A. SCOTT

VERSUS

JAMES RAY ROBERTS, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF BEAUREGARD, NO. C-2000-0957
HONORABLE STUART S. KAY JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLIE COLOMBARO WOODARD
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Billie Colombaro Woodard, Marc T. Amy, and Billy Howard
Ezell, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Harry Pierre Fontenot Jr. Charles A. “Sam” Jones, III
Assistant Attorney General Attorney at Law
901 Lakeshore Drive, Ste 820 P.O. Box 995
Lake Charles, LA 70601 DeRidder, LA 70634
(337) 491-2844 (337) 463-5532
Counsel for: Defendant Appellant Counsel for: Plaintiff Appellee
State of Louisiana, DOTD Earl Lee Scott
James Ray Roberts Felicia A. Scott

WOODARD, Judge.

James Roberts and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of
Transportation and Development (collectively “the State”), appeal the trial court’s
denial of their motion to reform the judgment and place $45,000.00 in future medical
expenses, awarded to Felicia Scott, into a Future Medical Care Fund. The State also
filed a writ application, which we consolidated. Because placing the award into the
Future Medical Care Fund would be a substantial change in the judgement and
because the State did not raise this issue on direct appeal, we affirm the trial court’s
ruling.
*****

On December 3, 2002, a jury awarded Felicia Scott $300,000.00 in general
damages, $16,930.40 in past medical expenses, $18,308.00 in lost earnings,
$25,000.00 in future lost earnings, and $45,000.00 in future medical expenses. This
award resulted from an automobile accident involving her and James Roberts, an
employee of the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development.
Further discussion of the facts of this case can be found in our earlier opinion,
Scott v. Roberts in which the State appealed the verdict, alleging the $300,000.00
awarded in general damages was excessive.1 This court affirmed the jury’s verdict on
October 1, 2003.2
On February 20, 2004, the State motioned the trial court to amend the judgment
to specify that the $45,000.00 in future medical expenses be placed into the Future
Medical Care Fund (“the Fund”) and not paid directly to Felicia Scott. The Fund
would, then, pay Felicia Scott’s future medical costs directly to health care providers
up to a maximum amount of $45,000.00. The trial court denied the motion after a
hearing on April 19, 2004. The State appeals.
*****
A MENDING T HE J UDGMENT
Whether the judgment can be amended under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1951 is
determined by asking if the amendment which the State prayed for “takes nothing

1
Scott v. Roberts, 03-435 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/1/03), 856 So.2d 1258, writ
denied 03-0328 (La. 1/30/04), 865 So.2d 80.
2
Id.

1

away from or adds nothing to the original judgment.” 3 As a practical matter, we must
decide if not paying $45,000.00 directly to Felicia Scott and, instead, placing the
money into the Fund takes nothing away from the original judgment. If a party
desires a substantive change in the judgment, s/he must file a timely application for
a new trial or appeal.4 Apparently, the State abandoned this argument because it does
not appear in its brief before this court. Notwithstanding, we conclude that such an
amendment would substantially modify the judgment and, therefore would be
improper.

T HE J UDGMENT IS C ONTRARY TO S TATUTE
The State’s sole argument on appeal is that because La.R.S. 13:5106(B)(3)(c)
provides that:

[i]n any suit for personal injury against the state or
a state agency wherein the court pursuant to judgment
determines that the claimant is entitled to medical care and
related benefits that may be incurred subsequent to
judgment, the court shall order that all medical care and
related benefits incurred subsequent to judgment be paid
from the Future Medical Care Fund...

the current judgment is contrary to the statute and we must amend. In support of its
argument, the State cites our decision in Nunez v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.5
In Nunez, we concluded that the trial court erred by not placing future medical
benefits into a reversionary trust as another subsection of the statute requires.
However, the procedural posture in this case is different from that in Nunez. The
appellants in Nunez directly appealed the trial court’s judgment on a number of issues,
including the placing of future medical benefits into a reversionary trust. Here, the
State appealed the trial court’s judgment, first to this court and, then, to the supreme
court. At no time during that appellate process did the State raise the issue of
amending the judgment to place the future medical benefits into the Fund. It raised

3
Zeigler v. Zeigler, 420 So.2d 1342, 1344 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1982).
4
LaBove v. Theiriot, 597 So.2d 1007 (La.1992).
5
00-106 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/23/00), 774 So.2d 208, judgment reversed in part
on other grounds, 00-3062, (La. 2/16/01), 780 So.2d 348.

2

this after it exhausted its appeals on this case. Thus, the provisions of the statute
provide us with no procedural vehicle for amending the judgment after the appeals are
exhausted.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the trial court properly denied the State’s motion to amend
the judgment, as an amendment at this time is procedurally and substantively
improper. Costs of the appeal are assigned to the State.

AFFIRMED.

3