Heather Dupuis v. Avoyelles Parish Correctional Center

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 17-999

HEATHER DUPUIS

VERSUS

AVOYELLES PARISH CORRECTIONAL CENTER

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 2
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 17-02842
JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Candyce G. Perret,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
MOTION TO CONVERT APPEAL TO A WRIT GRANTED AND WRIT
CONSOLIDATED WITH DOCKET NUMBER 17-1079.
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES DEFERRED.

Randall C. Joy
The Joy Law Firm
1070-B West Causeway Approach
Mandeville, Louisiana 70471
(985) 246-3197
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Heather Dupuis

Donald Guidry, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
Louisiana Department of Justice
Post Office Box 1710
Alexandria, Louisiana 71309
(318) 487-5944
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
State of Louisiana through the Avoyelles Parish Correctional Center

SAUNDERS, Judge.

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

State of Louisiana through the Avoyelles Parish Correctional Center, to show

cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this case should not be dismissed for having

been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment. For the reasons

assigned, we hereby dismiss the appeal, but convert the appeal into an application

for supervisory writ and consolidate this matter with the pending writ application

bearing this court’s docket number 17-1079.

This case involves a workers’ compensation action which was filed by

Plaintiff, Heather Dupuis. During the course and scope of her employment with

Avoyelles Correctional Center, Plaintiff was allegedly verbally abused and

physically threated by the warden, Nate Cain, on September 10, 2015. As a result

of that incident, Plaintiff allegedly suffered anxiety, depression and increased

blood pressure problems. Plaintiff began treating with her primary care physician,

Dr. Lawrence Schneider, who diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder on

September 19, 2016.

On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation Form

LDOL-WC 1008 in the workers’ compensation court. Defendant filed an

exception of prescription asserting that Plaintiff’s claim is prescribed under La.R.S.

23:1209(A)(1) because it was filed more than a year after the work-related incident.

In opposition to the exception of prescription, Plaintiff argues that pursuant to

La.R.S. 23:1209(A)(3), her workers’ compensation claim was timely-filed because

it was filed within one year of her initial diagnosis of a post-traumatic stress

disorder and less than three years after the work-related incident.

Following a hearing held on August 21, 2017, the workers’ compensation

court denied Defendant’s exception of prescription. A judgment to that effect was

signed on September 11, 2017, and the notice of judgment was mailed on that

same date. On September 13, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for appeal, and the

order of appeal was signed on that same date. The instant appeal record was

lodged in this court on October 26, 2017.

The September 11, 2017 judgment which is at issue in the instant appeal

denies an exception of prescription. Because the judgment does not decide the

merits of this case, it is interlocutory. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841. On November 20,

2017, Defendant filed a response to this court’s rule to show cause why the appeal

should not be dismissed for having been taken from a non-appealable,

interlocutory judgment. We note that Defendant does not dispute the fact that the

September 11, 2017 judgment is an interlocutory judgment. Rather, Defendant

moves to have this court convert the instant appeal to an application for

supervisory writ.

However, we note that on November 21, 2017, Defendant filed with this

court an application for supervisory writs, which was assigned this court’s docket

number 17-1079. By that writ application, Defendant seeks review of the same

judgment that is at issue in the instant appeal. Thus, although we must dismiss the

instant appeal, in the interest of justice, we deem motion and order for appeal in

this matter to be timely request for the setting of a return date for the filing of a

writ application. Therefore, we convert the instant matter into an application for

supervisory writ and order this matter consolidated with this court’s docket number

17-1079. Additionally, we note that Plaintiff has filed an answer to the appeal

2

wherein she raises the sole issue of her entitlement to attorney’s fees for work

performed in connection with the appeal. However, as stated above, the judgment

at issue will be reviewed via an application for supervisory writ, rather than via an

appeal. Therefore, we hereby defer Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees to the

merits of the writ application filed under this court’s docket number 17-1079.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed, converted

into an application for supervisory writ, and consolidated with this court’s docket

number 17-1079.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
MOTION TO CONVERT APPEAL TO A WRIT GRANTED AND WRIT
CONSOLIDATED WITH DOCKET NUMBER 17-1079.
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES DEFERRED.

3