Chandler v. Cajun Ready Mix Concrete

• Decision Date: 07 July 2021
• Docket Number: 2019 CA 1650
• Parties: Jimmy CHANDLER v. CAJUN READY MIX CONCRETE and The Gray Insurance Company
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

328 So.3d 1189

Jimmy CHANDLER
v.
CAJUN READY MIX CONCRETE and The Gray Insurance Company

2019 CA 1650

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment rendered: JULY 07, 2021

Willie G. Johnson, Jr., Derek E. Elsey, Jennifer O. Robinson, Sophia J. Riley, Dominique Lang, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant, Jimmy Chandler

Kirk L. Landry, Virginia J. McLin, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees, The Gray Insurance Company and its insured, Cajun Ready Mix Concrete

BEFORE: McDONALD, McCLENDON, WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.

HOLDRIDGE, J.

An employee appeals a judgment of the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) granting the employer's "Motion to Quash Status Conference" and dismissing the employee's claims, without prejudice, on the basis of the employee's prior voluntary "partial" motion for voluntary dismissal. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 4, 2018, the plaintiff, Jimmy Chandler, filed a disputed claim for compensation¹ with the Office of Workers’ Compensation, naming as defendants Cajun Ready Mix Concrete as his employer and The Gray Insurance Company as its insurer/administrator. The plaintiff alleged the following as bona-fide disputes: no medical treatment had been authorized; wage benefits were terminated or reduced on April 3, 2018; medical treatment recommended by a particular physician was not authorized; choice of specialty physician was not authorized; "[d]isability status"; vocational rehabilitation; and "[r]efusal to authorize/submit to evaluation with choice of physician/Independent Medical Examination ...."

The defendants responded to the plaintiff's claims by filing an answer, together with a dilatory exception raising the objections of prematurity, vagueness, and ambiguity, and a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action. Following a July 19, 2018 hearing, the WCJ² sustained the defendants’ exceptions. The WCJ subsequently executed a written judgment on July 27, 2018, sustaining the exception of no cause of action as to the plaintiff's claim for vocational rehabilitation services; sustaining the exception of prematurity as to the plaintiff's claims for wage benefits, choice of physician, and medical treatment; and, sustaining the exceptions

328 So.3d 1191

of vagueness and ambiguity as to the plaintiff's remaining claims regarding "[d]isability status" and "[r]efusal to authorize/submit to evaluation with choice of physician/Independent Medical Examination" (remaining claims). In accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 933(B), the WCJ ordered the plaintiff to amend his disputed claim for compensation with regard to his remaining claims within fifteen days.

The plaintiff failed to file an amended disputed claim for compensation within fifteen days as ordered by the WCJ. The WCJ issued a sua sponte rule ordering the plaintiff to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed for non-prosecution. On March 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the dismissal of his claim for failure to prosecute, together with a motion to set trial. Trial was set for April 29, 2019. The defendants filed a motion to vacate the trial date, arguing that the majority of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed by the July 27, 2018 judgment, and that La. C.C.P. art. 933(B) required the dismissal of his remaining claims based on the plaintiff's failure to amend his disputed claim for compensation.

The WCJ conducted a telephone status conference on April 24, 2019.³ The minutes reflect that counsel for the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the pending suit and re-file the disputed claim for compensation, and that the trial date was continued. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiff filed a pleading titled "Voluntary Partial Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice the April [4], 2018 Disputed Claim for Compensation" (voluntary motion to dismiss).⁴ On April 29, 2019, the WCJ executed an "Order on Voluntary Partial Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice," which provided in pertinent part that "Plaintiff's Voluntary Partial Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice" was granted, and "an order dismissing, without prejudice, all of his allegations against in (sic ) the April [4], 2018, 1008 Disputed Claim for Compensation" (judgment on the voluntary motion to dismiss). The judgment on the voluntary motion to dismiss further ordered that the plaintiff reserved any and all rights or causes of actions contained within the original disputed claim for compensation.

Subsequently, the WCJ set a telephone status conference for July 25, 2019. The day before the telephone status conference, the defendants filed a pleading titled "Motion to Quash Status Conference" (motion to quash). The defendants argued that the telephone status conference should not have been set because the case was dismissed, "both by operation of law and by the motion for voluntary dismissal filed by the Claimant." Thus, the defendants requested that the WCJ grant the motion to quash and that the suit remain dismissed.

Following a September 5, 2018 hearing, the WCJ issued an oral ruling granting the motion to quash. The WCJ further ruled that the plaintiff's April 4, 2018 disputed claim for compensation was dismissed both by operation of law and by the plaintiff's voluntary motion to dismiss. The WCJ executed a written judgment on October 1, 2019, together with written reasons prepared at the plaintiff's request. From this judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

This Court initially issued a show cause order, ex proprio motu , as to why this

328 So.3d 1192

appeal should not be dismissed, because the October 1, 2019 judgment did not contain the typewritten or printed name of the judge as required by La. C.C.P. art. 1911(A). See Barajas-Meraz v. Valdovinos-Moreno , 2015-0473 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/26/16), 190 So.3d 758, 759-60. However, after a thorough review of the judgment, statutes, and jurisprudence, we conclude that the appeal should be maintained.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1918 mandates that a final judgment be identified as such by appropriate language. It is well settled that a final judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. Laird v. St. Tammany Par. Safe Harbor , 2002-0045, 2002-0046 (La....