Lechia Baker v. Summit Nursing Home

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-1007

LECHIA BAKER

VERSUS

SUMMIT NURSING HOME

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 2
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 0820580
JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and J. David Painter, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Michael D. Bass
Guglielmo, Lopez
P. O. Drawer 1329
Opelousas, LA 70571-1329
(337) 948-8201
Counsel for Defendant Appellee:
Summit Nursing Home

Lechia Baker
In Proper Person
P. O. Box 141
LeCompte, LA 71346
Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant:
Lechia Baker

SAUNDERS, Judge.

This is a workers’ compensation case where the employee, after the employee’s

counsel appropriately withdrew, failed to attend the mandatory pre-trial conference.

As a result, the workers’ compensation judge set a contradictory hearing to determine

whether to dismiss the employee’s claim. After the employee failed to attend the

contradictory hearing, the workers’ compensation judge dismissed the employee’s

claim, without prejudice, and allowed the employee thirty days to reinstate her claim

for good cause shown. Rather than attempt to reinstate the claim, the employee filed

this appeal. Under La.R.S. 23:1310.1(C) and Louisiana Administrative Code, Title

40, Part I, Chapter 57, § 5705, we find no error in the workers’ compensation judge’s

judgment and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Lecia Baker (Baker) filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits via a

disputed claim for compensation, Form LDOL-WC-1008, against Summit Nursing

Home (Summit) on August 21, 2008. At the time, she was represented by counsel.

After filing Form LDOL-WC-1008, a telephone status conference was

conducted on October 23, 2008. The workers’ compensation court provided counsel

for both parties with a date for mandatory pre-trial mediation conference and a date

for trial.

Baker’s counsel later filed a motion to withdraw from representing her. In that

motion, counsel specifically acknowledged receiving notice of the pre-trial mediation

date, April 24, 2009. Baker’s counsel further indicated in the certificate of service

that he had forwarded to Baker, at her current address, the motion to withdraw and

pre-trial mediation date.

Baker failed to attend the pre-trial conference on April, 24, 2009. The

Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) then set a contradictory hearing to determine

whether Baker’s claim should be dismissed based on her failure to appear and

participate at the pre-trial mediation conference.

The contradictory hearing was set for June 15, 2009. Despite receiving notice

of the hearing, Baker did not attend. As a result, the WCJ dismissed her claim

without prejudice, and allowed Baker thirty days to reinstate her claim for good cause

shown.

Baker never sought to reinstate her claim within the thirty days allowed.

Rather, she filed this devolutive appeal. In her brief, Baker failed to list any

assignments of error. Instead, Baker’s brief is a recitation of the facts dealing with

the alleged merits of her claim against Summit.

DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS:

Baker has failed to properly construct a brief that names any assignments of

error in the WCJ’s judgment. Instead, Baker argues the merits of her claim, which

was never adjudicated by the WCJ, as she failed to reach that point in the

proceedings. Accordingly, the only possible ground for appeal is that Baker’s case

was improperly dismissed. Given that Baker is representing herself in this appeal, in

an abundance of caution and in the interest of justice, we will conduct a general

review of the WCJ’s judgment dismissing her case.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1310.1(C) states the following:

The director [of the Office of Workers Compensation] shall have the
authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations, including the rules
of procedure before the workers’ compensation judges, according to the
procedures established by the Administrative Procedure Act. All rules
and regulations, properly approved and promulgated under the
Administrative Procedure Act, shall be consistent with the Workers’
Compensation Law and shall be binding in the administration of that
law.

2

Under the authority granted by La.R.S. 23:1310.1, the Louisiana

Administrative Code, Title 40, Part I, Chapter 57, § 5705, entitled “Abandonment”

was promulgated, the text of which follows:

A. A claim may be dismissed at the judge’s discretion after
contradictory hearing properly noticed by the court for lack of
prosecution for the following reasons:

....

4. Where a party fails to appear for a properly noticed
conference;

C. Dismissal under this Rule shall be without prejudice. Any order
of dismissal shall allow for reinstatement of the action within
thirty (30) days for good cause shown.

In the case before us, the record indicates that Baker was given notice of the

mandatory pre-trial mediation conference. Baker’s counsel, in his motion to

withdraw, acknowledged receiving notice of the conference and relaying that

information to his client. These actions by counsel for Baker adhered to Louisiana

Administrative Code Title 40, Part I, Chapter 55, Subchapter I, § 5547(A), which

states:

A. When an attorney seeks to obtain an ex parte order to withdraw
as counsel for a party, he shall include in his application the last known
address of the claimant along with a statement that he has given written
notice to the party he was previously representing that he is no longer of
counsel to him and of the status of the case on the court's docket. The
attorney shall certify to the court that he has given notice to all counsel
of record at the same time and in the same manner as notification to the
court. A copy of such written notice and certification shall be attached
to the application for the ex parte order for withdrawal. An attorney who
has been permitted by ex parte order to withdraw shall give notice of
same to all parties.

Despite receiving this notice, Baker failed to participate in or attend the pre-

trial mediation conference. Under Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 40, Part I,

Chapter 57, § 5705(A), the WCJ was within his discretion to set the contradictory

3

hearing regarding whether to dismiss Baker’s claim. When Baker failed to attend that

contradictory hearing, the WCJ, as is within his discretion, dismissed her claim

without prejudice, allowing her to reinstate the claim within thirty days for good

cause shown. The record shows that Baker never took any steps to reinstate her case

within the thirty days granted by the WCJ. Accordingly, we find no error by the WCJ

in dismissing Baker’s claim against Summit.

CONCLUSION:

Baker took this devolutive appeal to the WCJ dismissing her claim against

Summit. In brief, Baker did not list any assignments of error, nor did she argue that

the WCJ was improper in dismissing her claim. Rather, Baker argued the merits of

her claim for entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. Given that Baker

represented herself, we conducted a general review of the WCJ’s judgment dismissing

her claim. We found no error in the judgment. Thus, we affirm the WCJ’s judgment

and assess all costs of this appeal to Baker.

AFFIRMED.

4