Davis v. Farm Fresh Food Supplier.

• Decision Date: 28 March 2003
• Docket Number: No. 2002 CA 1401.,2002 CA 1401.
• Citation: 844 So.2d 352
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: Jonathan DAVIS v. FARM FRESH FOOD SUPPLIER.

Page 352

844 So.2d 352

Jonathan DAVIS v. FARM FRESH FOOD SUPPLIER.

No. 2002 CA 1401.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

March 28, 2003.

William R. Mustian, III, Metairie, for Plaintiff/Appellee, Jonathan Davis.

Gary "Ted" Chapman, Amite, for Defendant-Appellant, Farm Fresh Food Supplier, Inc.

Before: CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE, and CIACCIO,¹ JJ.

CARTER, C.J.

Jonathon Davis worked for Farm Fresh Food Suppliers intermittently for four to five years and had been employed by them for six to eight months before the alleged accident at issue in this case. On February 21, 2001, Davis filed a claim ,with the OWC alleging that while making deliveries for Farm Fresh on January 18, 2001, some of the products inside his cargo truck shifted, causing him to crash into a ditch. Farm Fresh paid Davis no wage benefits or medical expenses. In addition to workers' compensation, Davis sought penalties and attorney fees pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201F and LSA-R.S. 23:1208D. Farm Fresh denied that Davis sustained an injury and stated it did not know if Davis was performing services arising out of and in the course of his employment at the time of his alleged injury.

A trial on the matter was held on May 1, 2002. The OWC judge signed a judgment that included factual findings that Davis's injury was work-related and that he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from January 18, 2001, through May 8, 2001, medical expenses, penalties, attorney fees, and civil penalties. However, the judgment also dismissed Davis's claim without prejudice. Ignoring the final decree of the judgment, Farm Fresh filed this suspensive appeal.

The May 13, 2002 judgment combines factual findings and written reasons with a final decree. That judgment states, in pertinent part:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that claimant Jonathan Davis was involved in a work-related accident on January 18, 2001;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, AD-JUDGED, AND DECREED that claimant Jonathan Davis is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from January 18, 2001 through May 8, 2001 at the rate of $201.77 per week;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, AD-JUDGED, AND DECREED that claimant Jonathan Davis is entitled to payment of medical expenses incurred with Dr. George Anthon in the amount of 83,865.00;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, AD-JUDGED, AND DECREED that claimant Jonathan Davis is entitled to penalties in the amount of $2,000.00 pursuant to La R.S. 23:1201(F);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, AD-JUDGED, AND DECREED that claimant Jonathan Davis is entitled to $5,000.00 in attorney fees pursuant to La R.S. 23:1201(F);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, AD-JUDGED, AND DECREED that employer Farm Fresh Food Supplier has violated the provisions of La R.S. 23:1208(A);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, AD-JUDGED, AND DECREED that employer Farm Fresh Food Supplier be and is hereby assessed a civil penalty of $5,000.00 pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1208(D);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, AD-JUDGED, AND DECREED that the above-captioned matter be dismissed without prejudice, all cost assessed against employer Farm Fresh Food Supplier.

Although each paragraph begins with "ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED" language, the "judgment" makes no awards and grants no relief until the final two paragraphs, in which the court assesses a penalty against Farm Fresh yet dismisses Davis's claim. The preceding paragraphs simply recite the factual basis for and benefits to which Davis is entitled, as is commonly done in written reasons for judgment. Article 1918 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure mandates that reasons for judgment be set out in an opinion separate from the judgment.² Appeals are taken from judgments, not the reasons for judgment. Huang v. Louisiana State Board of Trustees, 99-2805, p. 5 & n. 3 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/22/00), 781 So.2d 1, 6 & n. 3.

written reasons for judgment are considered to be interlocutory rulings and do not carry the finality of a judgment. Prior to final judgment, a trial court may, at its discretion, change the substance or the result of interlocutory rulings. If a disparity exists between the judgment and the written reasons for judgment, the final judgment is definitive. Sanford v. Sanford, 468 So.2d 844, 845 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985); Garner v. Garner, 97-0128, p. 5 (La.App. 3rd Cir.6/18/97), 698 So.2d 34, 36.

In this case, the factual findings and written reasons incorporated into the "judgment" are inconsistent and at odds with the language in the final two paragraphs. Our dilemma is that the reasons and judgment are all one document. While it appears the workers' compensation judge simply made a mistake in ordering dismissal of the Davis's claims after making findings that the Davis was entitled to workers' compensation benefits, medical benefits, and penalties, we have no way of knowing for certain. The one thing we do know for...