Mid-State Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine v. Alliance Compressors, LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 15-216

MID-STATE ORTHOPAEDIC AND SPORTS MEDICINE CENTER, INC.
(DeRHONDA BROWN)

VERSUS

ALLIANCE COMPRESSORS, LLC

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 2
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 10-08235
JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

JOHN E. CONERY

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Judges Jimmie C. Peters, James T. Genovese, and John E.
Conery.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Richard Bray Williams
Williams Family Law Firm, L.L.C
Post Office Box 15
Natchitoches, LA 71458-0015
(318) 352-6695
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Mid-State Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Center, Inc.

Scott T. Winstead
Craig J. Geraci, Jr.
Burleson, L.L.P.
650 Poydras St., Suite 2750
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 526-4350
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Alliance Compressors, LLC

CONERY, Judge.

This court issued a rule for the appellant, Alliance Compressors, LLC, to

show cause, by brief only, why this appeal should not be dismissed as having been

taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling. The appellant did not file a

brief in response to the rule. For the reasons below, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

On October 20, 2014, the workers’ compensation court denied the

appellant’s motion for summary judgment. In an unpublished ruling, a writ

application seeking review of this judgment was denied by this court. Mid-State

Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Center, Inc. v. Alliance Compressors, LLC, 15-

19 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/15). Upon receipt of the record, this court, on its own

motion, issued a rule to show cause why the appellant’s appeal should not be

dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling.

The judgment appealed, which denied the appellant’s motion for summary

judgment, does not decide the merits of this case and is interlocutory. La.Code

Civ.P. art. 1841. As no statute expressly provides for an appeal of this

interlocutory ruling, we find that the appeal must be dismissed. La.Code Civ.P. art.

2083. A review of the ruling would also be repetitious; thus, we do not construe

the motion for appeal as a notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ. See, e.g.,

Williamson v. Dresser, Inc., 07-672 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/15/07), 964 So.2d 444.

APPEAL DISMISSED.