Richard v. Quality Constr. & Prod., LLC
| Decision Date | 28 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | 19-567 |
| Citation | 306 So.3d 516 |
| Parties | Steve RICHARD, Jr. v. QUALITY CONSTRUCTION & PRODUCTION, LLC, et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Elizabeth Smyth Rambin, Comeaux, Stephens & Grace, 3900 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 1060, Metairie, Louisiana 70002, (504) 831-3747, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants: Quality Construction & Production, LLC And Zurich American Insurance Company
Janice Hebert Barber, Jennifer B. Valois, Barber Law Firm, 111 Mercury St., Lafayette, Louisiana 70503, (337) 232-9893, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Steve Richard, Jr.
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders, Billy Howard Ezell, Van H. Kyzar and Jonathan W. Perry, Judges.
In this case to enforce a workers’ compensation judgment, the employer and its insurer appeal, contending the Workers’ Compensation Judge ("WCJ") erred when it enforced an invalid final judgment. We reverse and remand with instructions.
This matter has previously been before this court. In Richard v. Quality Constr. & Prod., LLC , 18-965 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/5/19), 275 So.3d 328, 331–32,1 writ denied , 19-01101 (La. 10/8/19), 280 So.3d 591, this court summarized the underlying facts as follows:
This court affirmed the WCJ's determination that Richard forfeited his workers’ compensation benefits and its award of penalties and attorney's fees for Quality's failure to pay Richard's emergency medical expenses as required under La.R.S. 23:1081(13).
Subsequently, Quality and its insurer, Zurich Insurance Company ("Zurich"), paid emergency medical costs of $87,486.19 to the emergency healthcare providers2 and paid $147,198.93 to Richard's health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield ("BCBS"), the amount that it expended on Richard's behalf as it related to those emergency medical costs. Those checks totaled $234,685.12.3 Quality and Zurich also paid Richard the $2,000.00 penalty and the $10,000.00 attorney's fees awarded by the WCJ.
Thereafter, Richard excepted to the decision of Quality and Zurich to calculate and pay the individual medical providers and moved to enforce the judgment to require them to pay those same amounts again, this time paid directly to Richard. The WCJ agreed with Richard and ordered Quality and Zurich to repay the judgment to Richard in the following amounts: emergency medical expenses and interest owed through December 5, 2018, $285,002.64; a penalty of 24% as allowed under La.R.S. 23:1201(G) in the sum of $70,592.89; and pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G), an attorney's fees award of $10,000.00.
Quality and Zurich then perfected this suspensive appeal. In their sole assignment of error, Quality and Zurich contend that the WCJ erred when it granted plaintiff's motion seeking to enforce a judgment that had already been paid in full.
The issues presented by the parties herein question legal conclusions and factual findings made by the WCJ. On appellate review, an incorrect legal conclusion made by the trial court regarding a question of law is reviewed de novo. Latiolais v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc ., 11-383 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11), 74 So.3d 872. Factual findings are reviewed pursuant to the manifest error-clearly wrong standard, and the findings of the WCJ will not be set aside unless a review of the entire record shows that they are clearly wrong. Talbot v. Mouton Plumbing & Hauling, Inc. , 17-759, 17-357 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/25/18), 244 So.3d 1235.
On September 10, 2018, Richard moved to enforce the judgment of July 12, 2018, relying on La.R.S. 23:1310.7(A), that judicial interest be awarded on that sum until paid, and that a 24% penalty be assessed pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G) for the failure of Quality and Zurich to timely pay the final judgment. Quality and Zurich contended at trial, as they do before this court, that they paid all that was owed under the judgment.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1310.7(A), provides, in pertinent part that "[a] workers’ compensation judge shall have the power to enforce any order or judgment he shall deem proper which is issued pursuant to the powers and jurisdiction provided for in this Chapter and the Constitution of Louisiana." It is unquestionable that Richard first had the burden, as the movant on his motion, to enforce to show that the judgment of July 12, 2018, was a valid final judgment.
It is well settled that a final judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. A final judgment must also contain decretal language. Conley v. Plantation Mgmt. Co., L.L.C. , 12-1510 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/6/13), 117 So.3d 542, writ denied , 13-1300 (La. 9/20/13), 123 So.3d 178. "Generally, it must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied." Id . at 547. Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Tech., Inc. , 10-477, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 916 (citations omitted). The specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment without reference to other documents. Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Indus., Inc ., 01-0809 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 906, overruled on other grounds sub nom. , Advanced Leveling & Concrete Solutions v. Lathan Co., Inc ., 17-1250 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/18), 268 So.3d 1044.
The judgment of July 12, 2018, reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "there be judgment in favor of STEVE RICHARD and against QUALITY PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. and ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY for all medical expenses through August 23, 2015, pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1081(13), not subject to the Louisiana Fee Schedule, together with a penalty of $2000, and an attorney fee of $10,000 for failure to pay any sums under this provision."4
After reviewing the language of the judgment in light of the jurisprudential pronouncements on the elements of a valid final judgment and the conflicts evidenced in the hearing on Richard's motion to enforce, several glaring deficiencies emerge. Initially, we observe that the judgment fails to detail the medical expenses owed. Not only are the emergency medical expenses not delineated, the accrual dates of those expenses are not designated. As observed in Spires v. Raymond Westbrook Logging , 43,690, p. 9 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/22/08), 997 So.2d 175, 181, writ denied , 08-2771 (La. 2/20/09), 1 So.3d 495 :
[T]he judicial interest on each claim begins accruing on a different date. The medical expenses must be specifically ordered so that interest can be correctly calculated. For this reason, we order the modification of the portion of the judgment regarding the medical expenses, to declare a separate and distinct pronouncement of each award of medical expenses.
As the record clearly reflects, Quality and Zurich had to comb the record to identify what emergency medical expenses there were and who provided those services. Additionally, the judgment fails to provide in unmistakable language to whom Quality and Zurich were required to pay the emergency medical expenses.5 Ambiguity permeates this aspect of the judgment, and Richard resorts to an examination of the jurisprudence, clearly an extrinsic source, to establish to whom Quality and Zurich should have made payment.6 Clearly, Richard failed to prove there was a valid judgment to be enforced with regard to the amount owed by Quality and Zurich and to whom Richard's emergency medical expenses were to be paid. Thus, we find the WCJ erred as a matter of law when it enforced that discrete aspect of the July 12, 2018, judgment.
The briefs of Richard, Quality, and Zurich identify numerous issues yet to be determined because of Quality's and Zurich's direct payment of emergency medical expenses to the healthcare providers and BCBS. Among those issues identified are questions regarding the disposition of excess medical payments that Quality and Zurich may have made, as well as the potential right of counsel for Richard to recover attorney's fees. Because these issues remain, we remand this matter to the WCJ to enter a valid final judgment which addresses not only the amounts owed and the dates those medical expenses accrued, but to whom those payments are to be made. As explained below, such alterations of the judgment constitute amendments that a trial court can validly make.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1951 provides:
On motion of the court or any party, a final judgment may be amended at any time to alter the phraseology of the judgment, but not its substance, or to correct errors of calculation. The judgment may be amended only after a hearing with notice to all parties, except that a hearing is not required if all parties consent or if the court or the party...
To continue reading
Request your trial