WCA-0009-1007 Nonprecedential Processed

Lechia Baker v. Summit Nursing Home

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed October 7, 2009

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., March 10, 2010

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