Carol Thomas v. Lafayette Parish School System

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 13-91

CAROL THOMAS

VERSUS

LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - # 4
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 09-08883
SHARON MORROW, WORKERS COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

MOTION TO CONVERT APPEAL TO A WRIT DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED AND REMANDED.

Mark Louis Riley
Glenn Armentor Corp.
300 Stewart St.
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 233-1471
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Carol Thomas

Dawn L. Morris
The Dill Firm
825 Lafayette St.
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 261-1408
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Lafayette Parish School System

GENOVESE, Judge.

This court issued, sua sponte, a rule ordering the Plaintiff-Appellant, Carol

Thomas, to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this case should not be

dismissed for having been taken from a judgment lacking the proper decretal

language. In response, Plaintiff asks that this court convert the instant appeal into

an application for supervisory writ. For the reasons assigned, we dismiss this

appeal, deny the motion to convert, and remand this case for further proceedings in

accordance with this court’s ruling.

This case involves a workers’ compensation claim which Plaintiff filed

alleging that she sustained injuries when she tripped and fell during the course and

scope of her employment with Defendant, the Lafayette Parish School Board. On

August 8, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and the

motion was heard on September 7, 2012. On October 29, 2012, the workers’

compensation court signed a judgment granting Defendant’s motion for partial

summary judgment. The notice of judgment was mailed on the same day. On

December 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for appeal, and the workers’

compensation court signed the order of appeal on December 20, 2012. The appeal

record was lodged in this court on January 29, 2013. As stated above, upon the

lodging of the record in this appeal, this court issued a rule for the Plaintiff to show

cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a

judgment lacking the proper decretal language.

The judgment at issue reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,
that the Lafayette Parish School Board’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment is granted.

In her response to this court’s rule to show cause order, Plaintiff argues that

the above language complies with the requirements for a final judgment. However,

we note that this court has stated that “[a] valid judgment must be precise, definite,

and certain. A final appealable judgment must contain decretal language, and it

must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against

whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied.” State v. White,

05-718 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1144, 1146. Moreover, a judgment

cannot require reference to extrinsic documents or pleadings in order to discern the

court’s ruling. Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 2001-809 (La.App. 1

Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 906.

In the instant case, it is unclear from the face of the judgment whether the

granting of Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment results in the

dismissal of all or only some of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. This

information, which is necessary for a determination of whether an appealable

judgment has been rendered in this case, cannot be ascertained without referring to

other pleadings in the record. Therefore, we find that the judgment at issue in the

instant appeal is ambiguous and lacks appropriate decretal language. See Johnson

v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 2005-337 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/06), 934 So.2d 66.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand this case to the workers’

compensation court for further proceedings in accordance with this ruling.

Additionally, we note that in her response to this court’s rule to show cause

order, Plaintiff asks this court to covert the instant appeal into an application for

supervisory writ. However, we find that if the judgment at issue dismisses all of

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant and terminates the litigation, then the exercise

of this court’s supervisory jurisdiction is not warranted because the judgment

2

dismissing Plaintiff’s claims would be a final, appealable judgment. Appellate

courts generally will not exercise their supervisory jurisdiction when an adequate

remedy exists by appeal. Douglass v. Alton Ochsner Medical Found., 96-2825 (La.

6/13/97), 695 So.2d 953. Also, we note that the Louisiana Supreme Court has held

that La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915 does not apply to workers’ compensation cases. See

Rhodes v. Lewis, 2001-1989 (La. 5/14/02), 817 So.2d 64. Therefore, even if this

court found that the judgment at issue dismisses only some of Plaintiff’s claims,

that partial judgment would not be susceptible to being designated immediately

appealable pursuant to Article 1915. Rather, the proper appellate remedy would be

an appeal upon rendition of a final judgment at the completion of the case.

MOTION TO CONVERT APPEAL TO A WRIT DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED AND REMANDED.

3