Priscilla Whittington v. Paragon Casino Resort

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 03-1286

PRISCILLA WHITTINGTON

VERSUS

PARAGON CASINO RESORT

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - # 2
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 02-09274
SHERAL C. KELLAR, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Billie Colombaro Woodard, Oswald A. Decuir, and Billy Howard
Ezell, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

George Arthur Flournoy
Flournoy, Doggett & Losavio
P. O. Box 1270
Alexandria, LA 71309-1270
(318) 487-9858
Counsel for: Plaintiff/Appellant
Priscilla Whittington

Trenton John Oubre
Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson
P. O. Box 3197
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
(225) 387-4000
Counsel for: Defendant/Appellee
Paragon Casino Resort

EZELL, JUDGE.

This case involves the issue of whether the Office of Workers’ Compensation

has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim filed by an employee of the Tunica

Biloxi Indians of Louisiana d/b/a Paragon Casino. Finding that this specific issue has

been recently addressed by this court, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

Priscilla Whittington was hired by Paragon Casino on November 28, 1995, as

a soft count handler. She claims that, as a result of her employment, she suffered

progressive carpal tunnel injury to both hands and wrists which subsequently caused

pain and injury to her neck and back. She filed a claim for workers’ compensation

benefits on December 12, 2002.

Her claim was met with an exception of subject matter jurisdiction filed by

Paragon Casino. A hearing on the exception was held on March 24, 2003. The

workers’ compensation judge agreed with Paragon Casino that the Office of Workers’

Compensation does not have jurisdiction to litigate an action against the Tribe over

activities that occurred on tribal lands. A judgment granting Paragon Casino’s

exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction was signed on June 18, 2003.

Whittington appealed the judgment.

This very issue involving the same defendant was recently decided by a

different panel of this court in Ortego v. Tunica Biloxi Indians of La. d/b/a Paragon

Casino, 03-1001 (La.App. 3 Cir. 02/04/04), ____ So.2d ____. The panel in Ortego

throughly reviewed the history, law, and jurisprudence surrounding jurisdiction of

tribal courts and determined that the Tribe had not waived its sovereign immunity but

had retained its civil jurisdiction over workers’ compensation claims brought as a

result of tribal activities. We agree with the opinion and affirm the judgment of the

Office of Workers’ Compensation. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Priscilla

1

Whittington.

AFFIRMED.

2