Hamilton Medical Group v. Ochsner Health Plan
Decision Date | 22 September 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 89-407,89-407 |
Citation | 550 So.2d 290 |
Parties | HAMILTON MEDICAL GROUP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OCHSNER HEALTH PLAN d/b/a Hamilton Health Plan, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Perret, Doise, Daigle, Longman, Russo & Zaunbrecher, Douglas C. Longman, Jr., Lester J. Zaunbrecher, LaFayette, for plaintiff-appellee-mover.
Monroe & Lemann, Benj. R. Slater, Jr., Richmond M. Eustis, Gerard A. Bos, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants-respondents.
Before STOKER, KNOLL and KING, JJ.
Plaintiff-appellee, Hamilton Medical Group, moves to dismiss the appeal of defendants-appellants, Ochsner Health Plan d/b/a Hamilton Health Plan, Ochsner Service Corporation, Ochsner Clinic, and William H. Townsend, on the ground that appellants seek a review of an unappealable judgment, the denial of exceptions of improper venue and vagueness. Alternatively, appellee moves for an expedited hearing.
This Court on its own motion hereby converts defendants-appellants' appeal into a supervisory writ application and renders a decision on the merits for the following reasons.
A judgment that does not determine the merits but only preliminary matters is an interlocutory judgment. La.C.C.P. Art. 1841. An appeal can be taken from an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury. La.C.C.P. Art. 2083. A decision denying an exception of improper venue creates the possibility of irreparable injury because the appellate court, subsequent to a trial on the merits, has no practical means of correcting an incorrect ruling since the trial will have already taken place in an improper venue. In many instances, the trial will have been an absolute nullity since venue is also jurisdictional and may not be waived. La.C.C.P. Art. 44. For this reason, it has been recognized that the denial of an exception of improper venue is an appealable interlocutory judgment since it might cause irreparable injury. Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La.1981); Succession of Thompson v. Harrington, 489 So.2d 458 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1986). While we concede that there is authority for the proposition that an exception of improper venue can be appealed we do not believe that a mechanical application of this legal authority in this instance is logical or consistent with good judicial policy, or is fair. As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal stated in Laborde v. DeBlanc, 532 So.2d 829 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988):
We believe it to be bad judicial policy to make litigants wait for a long period of time for disposition of a pending appeal because of the docketing delays for appellate hearings present in some of our Louisiana appellate courts, such as the delay in the Third Circuit of approximately fifteen months from the date the appeal is docketed, and to then have the appellate court also find that the exception of improper venue had no merit. This could encourage a defendant to file a meritless exception of improper venue which the trial court would overrule, to then appeal the trial court's ruling, only to then have the appellate court ultimately sustain the trial court's ruling. Such action by a defendant could delay discovery and trial of a suit for over a year and a half. The result of this mechanical application of the law would result in defendant's obtaining an undue delay of trial of a suit by legal technicalities which would be the epitome of the expression "Justice delayed is Justice denied." For this reason, we chose, as the Fourth Circuit has done, to dismiss this appeal and then rule on the merits of the exceptions of improper venue and vagueness, since they have already been briefed, by considering the appeal as an application for supervisory writs under our supervisory authority as an appellate court. Laborde v. DeBlanc, supra; Henry v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., supra.
Plaintiff filed the instant suit in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. The defendants responded by filing the Dilatory Exceptions of Vagueness and of Improper Venue. After a hearing on these exceptions, the trial court overruled both exceptions. It is from this ruling that defendants are seeking an appellate review.
The plaintiff argues that the Ochsner Health Plan's office in Lafayette had supervision over the matters at issue in this suit, therefore, venue is proper under the provisions of La.C.C.P. Art. 77. The trial court agreed and denied the exception.
La.C.C.P. Art. 77 states as follows:
Art. 77. Action against person doing business in another parish
An action against a person having a business office or establishment in a parish other than that where he may be sued under Article 42, on a matter over which this office or establishment had supervision, may be brought in the parish where this office or establishment is located.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Land v. Dennis J. Vidrine.
...often created unnecessary delay in the progress of a lawsuit at the trial court level. See Hamilton Medical Group v. Ochsner Health Plan, 550 So.2d 290, 292 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). Finally, the amendment promotes uniformity and clarity in appellate practice in that there is now one delay peri......
-
Peloquin v. Eunice News
... ... Peloquin had reached maximum medical improvement and should be allowed to return to ... In Hamilton Medical Group v. Ochsner Health Plan, 550 So.2d ... ...
-
28,318 La.App. 2 Cir. 5/8/96, Tucker v. Ochsner Health Plan
... ... venue for an action against a Jefferson Parish health maintenance organization (HMO) under a group health care plan for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred outside of the HMO's geographical ... dental health management corporation for breach of professional service agreement) and Hamilton Med. Group v. Ochsner Health Plan, 550 So.2d 290 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989) (applying Art. 77 to action ... ...
-
93-1649 La.App. 3 Cir. 4/11/94, Benoit v. Louisiana Water Co.
... ... In Hamilton Medical Group v. Ochsner Health Plan, 550 So.2d ... ...