Moore v. Roemer

• Decision Date: 06 September 1990
• Docket Number: No. 90-C-1033,90-C-1033
• Citation: 567 So.2d 75
• Parties: Charles R. MOORE, et al v. Governor Charles "Buddy" ROEMER, et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 75

567 So.2d 75

Charles R. MOORE, et al v. Governor Charles "Buddy" ROEMER, et al.

No. 90-C-1033.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 6, 1990.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1990.

William J. Guste, Jr., Roy A. Mongrue, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., John N. Kennedy, Stephen W. Cavanaugh, for Governer Charles "Buddy" Roemer, et al., defendant-applicant.

Philip G. Hunter, Fuhrer, Flournoy, Hunter & Morton, for Charles R. Moore, Henry Rubin and Otin Burr, plaintiffs-respondents.

LEMMON, Justice ^*

This is a direct appeal under La. Const. art. V, Sec. 5(D) from a judgment of the court of appeal declaring the unconstitutionality of the provision of Act 938 of 1988 which vested in administrative hearing officers the "exclusive original jurisdiction" to adjudicate worker's compensation claims. See La.Rev.Stat. 23:1310.3A(4). We affirm, concluding that the portions of Act 938 of 1988 which divest the district courts of original jurisdiction over worker's compensation claims violate La. Const. art. V, Sec. 16(A). ¹

In 1914 the Louisiana Legislature enacted a worker's compensation system which remained in effect without major changes until 1975. W. Malone & H. Johnson, 13 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise--Worker's Compensation Sec. 36 (1980). Under the original act an employee initiated a claim for compensation by filing a civil suit against his employer in the district court.

By Act 583 of 1975 the Legislature enacted major amendments to the worker's compensation law, but retained the requirement for an employee to initiate a civil suit in the district court in order to recover compensation.

In Act 1 of the 1983 Extraordinary Session the Legislature created the Office of Worker's Compensation Administration (OWCA). The 1983 legislation also required an employee to file a compensation claim initially with the director of the OWCA, who thereafter issued an advisory recommendation for disposition of the claim. If any party rejected the recommendation, the employee had the right to file a civil suit in the district court.

Act 938 of 1988 eliminated the role of the district courts in worker's compensation litigation and created administrative hearing officers within the OWCA to serve the adjudicatory function that district court judges had previously fulfilled. W. Malone & H. Johnson, 14 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise--Worker's Compensation Sec. 381.10 (Supp.1990). Act 938 requires an injured employee to file a notice of injury with the Director and thereafter to file a petition with the OWCA if there are controverted issues that cannot be resolved by the parties. The petition, the filing of which interrupts the running of prescription, is assigned to a hearing officer who has the duty to encourage settlement, to hold a hearing, and to issue a decision which has the effect of a final money judgment between the employee and employer, subject to an appeal by either party to a designated court of appeal within the delays established in the Code of Civil Procedure for appeals from district courts. ² La.Rev.Stat. 23:1310.5(B).

Plaintiffs, two worker's compensation claimants and an attorney whose practice includes representing worker's compensation claimants, filed this action seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Act 938 of 1988 on several grounds. ³ Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin the appointment of any persons to fill the hearing officer positions created by Act 938.

The district court dismissed plaintiffs' action, finding that Act 938 was constitutional. In pertinent part the court reasoned:

The Act does not unconstitutionally divest district courts of original jurisdiction by providing for the administrative processing of injured worker's claims for compensation. The terms 'original, exclusive and appellate' jurisdiction, as used in the Louisiana Constitution, Article 5, Section 10 and Section 16, address the distribution of the judicial power vis a vis the courts. The constitution does not preclude administrative agencies from exercising jurisdiction over matters which are not ripe for judicial action. Neither the federal nor the state constitution impose on the legislature an obligation to provide employees who suffer injuries on the job with a particular kind of remedy. The legislature has the power to create, limit or abolish causes of action. The legislature has the power to enact laws governing the procedure by which rights may be exercised and to allocate access to the judicial branch in any manner which is not totally arbitrary. (citations omitted).

On appeal, the court of appeal held that the provisions of Act 938 which divested the district courts of original jurisdiction over worker's compensation claims were unconstitutional. 560 So.2d 927. Noting that La. Const. art. V, Sec. 16 vests the district courts with original jurisdiction over civil matters except as otherwise authorized by the constitution, the court determined that a claim for worker's compensation was a civil matter and a private right over which district courts had original jurisdiction. Since the constitution did not "otherwise authorize" the Legislature to take jurisdiction away from the district courts, the legislative action was invalid.

Defendants then perfected this appeal.

The burden of proving that an act is unconstitutional is upon the party attacking the act. Because the Legislature is entitled to exercise any power not specifically denied by the constitution, a party questioning the constitutionality of an act must point to a specific provision of the constitution which clearly prohibits the legislative action. Board of Directors of the Louisiana Recovery District v. All Taxpayers, Property Owners, and Citizens of Louisiana, 529 So.2d 384 (La.1988); Board of Commissioners v. Department of Natural Resources, 496 So.2d 281 (La.1986); Swift v. State, 342 So.2d 191 (La.1977); Ancor v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc., 256 So.2d 122 (La.1971). When a court can reasonably do so, it must construe a statute so as to preserve its constitutionality. State v. Newton, 328 So.2d 110 (La.1976).

Defendants first contend that worker's compensation is not a "civil matter" within the contemplation of La. Const. art. V, Sec. 16(A). Defendants argue that, in addition to civil and criminal matters, there is a separate innominate category of legal matters and that the Legislature intended by Act 938 to remove worker's compensation from the category of civil matters.

Original jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction in the first instance. 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts Sec. 98 (1965). The term designates the adjudicative tribunal in which the initial adjudication is made. When the original jurisdiction allocated to the various courts is circumscribed by the Louisiana Constitution, the Legislature may not alter such jurisdiction by statute. State v. Seals, 254 La. 904, 228 So.2d 310 (1969); Succession of Dyer, 184 La. 251, 166 So. 68 (1936).

Irrespective of any intent to remove worker's compensation claims from the category of civil matters and to circumvent the constitutional requirement for original jurisdiction in the district court, the Legislature was without authority to divest the district court of original jurisdiction over "all civil and criminal matters". Original jurisdiction over civil actions historically has been vested in the district courts. ⁴ During the Constitutional Convention of 1973 there was a proposal to institute a change which would allow the Legislature to fix the jurisdiction of the district courts, but that proposal was defeated. The history of Section 16 of Article V indicates a clear intent by the Constitutional Convention to prohibit the Legislature from changing the jurisdiction of district courts by majority vote. ⁵

The language of La. Const. art. V, Sec. 16 makes it evident that the drafters of the 1974 constitution intended to vest the district court with at least concurrent original jurisdiction to adjudicate all legal matters, both civil and criminal, except for those matters in which original jurisdiction is "otherwise authorized" by the constitution itself in other courts or in other adjudicate tribunals. La. Const. art. V, Sec. 16(A) uses the term "civil" in direct contrast to "criminal" matters. This terminology indicates an intent by the drafters to include all matters not criminal in nature as "civil matters" under the district court's original jurisdiction. ⁶ Nothing in the constitution suggests any intent that a separate category of innominate matters should be excluded from these all-inclusive terms.

The constitution's explicit statement that original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters is to be in the district courts "unless otherwise authorized by the constitution", along with express authorization elsewhere in the constitution for original jurisdiction in administrative bodies such as the Civil Service Commission and Public Service Commission, further indicates that matters under the original jurisdiction of administrative bodies are civil matters which would otherwise come under the original jurisdiction of the district court. ⁷ Another manifestation of the drafters' intent to categorize legal matters as civil and criminal is the fact that the constitution vests in the Supreme Court the authority to review questions of both law and facts in civil cases, but limits review authority in criminal matters to questions of law. La. Const. art. V, Secs. 5(C) and 10(B). These provisions encompass all matters, including those which come to the court through administrative agencies.

The debates during the Constitutional Convention concerning Article V further support this interpretation. There was very little debate over Section 16(A) and none specifically addressing the term "civil matters". There was comment, however, that Section 16 provided no substantive change from the 1921 Constitution or from the format of original jurisdiction for district courts in effect at that time. Records of the Louisiana...