WCA-0005-1348 Nonprecedential Remanded Processed

Joel Tyler v. Shawn Bart

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed April 5, 2006

Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 05-1348

JOEL TYLER

VERSUS

SHAWN BART

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 2
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 05-00860
JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

PER CURIAM

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Oswald A. Decuir, and Billy Howard Ezell,
Judges.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED.

Stephen E. Everett
Attorney at Law
823 Johnston Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 443-6312
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee:
Joel Tyler

p. 2

Barry Ray Laiche
Jeremy C. Cedars
Provosty, Sadler, deLaunay, Fiorenza & Sobel
Attorney at Law
P. O. Drawer 1791
Alexandria, LA 71309-1791
(318) 445-3631
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Shawn Bart

p. 3

PER CURIAM.

An appeal from a default judgment in a workers’ compensation case entered

in favor of Joel Tyler was filed by Shawn Bart. As indicated by the briefs, there is

actually no person or entity known as “Shawn Bart.” Mr. Tyler was employed by

Shawn Barton Masonry, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company with only one

member, Shawn Barton. The appeal raised the issue that default judgment was

entered without any evidence that a mediation conference had been noticed or

scheduled pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1310.3. Another issue concerned whether there was

proper service of process.

In his reply brief, Mr. Tyler observes that notices of mediation were sent to the

correct address of the employer under the name “Shawn Bart,” and no one appeared

on behalf of the employer. Mr. Tyler states that he had no knowledge of the correct

facts of his employment until the appeal was taken and the Appellant’s brief was

filed. However, in brief Mr. Tyler agrees that, in the interests of justice, the default

judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment in these proceedings, rendered on July 25, 2005, is

vacated. This case is remanded to the Office of Workers’ Compensation for further

proceedings. Costs of this appeal are assessed equally among the parties.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED.

p. 4