Lechia Baker v. Summit Nursing Home
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., March 10, 2010
Lechia Baker v. Summit Nursing Home, No. WCA-0009-1007 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Oct. 7, 2009).
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
09-1007
LECHIA BAKER
VERSUS
SUMMIT NURSING HOME
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COURT, DISTRICT 2
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 0820580
HONORABLE JAMES L. BRADDOCK,
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE
**********
MARC T. AMY
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, James T. Genovese, Judges.
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.
Lechia Baker
Post Office Box 141
Lecompte, Louisiana 71346
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
IN PROPER PERSON
Michael D. Bass
Guglielmo, Lopez, Tuttle, Hunter, & Jarrell, L.L.P.
Post office Drawer 1329
Opelousas, Louisiana 70571-1329
(337) 948-8201
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Summit Nursing Home
AMY, Judge.
The Defendant-Appellee, Summit Nursing Home, moves to dismiss this appeal
as having been abandoned. For the reasons given herein, we deny the motion to
dismiss.
By judgment signed June 22, 2009, the trial court dismissed the workers’
compensation action which Appellant, Lechia Baker, had filed against Appellee.
Appellant’s claim was dismissed subject to reinstatement within thirty days for good
cause shown. Appellant did not seek to have her claim reinstated. Instead, Appellant
filed an appeal which was lodged with this court on August 20, 2009.
At this time, Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground
that Appellant failed to timely file her appellate brief with this court. Appellant’s
brief was not filed within twenty-five days as required by Uniform Rules—Courts of
Appeal, Rule 2–12.7. However, pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule
2–8.6, on September 18, 2009, this court mailed Appellant notice that she has an
additional thirty days within which to file her brief. Pursuant to this notice,
Appellant’s brief is now due on October 19, 2009. As such, we find that Appellee’s
motion to dismiss, filed on September 18, 2009, is premature. Therefore, we hereby
deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss.
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.
1