Wheelahan v. State Through Louisiana State Claims Review Bd.
Decision Date | 10 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 10207,10207 |
Citation | 376 So.2d 576 |
Parties | Peggy L. WHEELAHAN, Class Representative v. STATE of Louisiana Through the LOUISIANA STATE CLAIMS REVIEW BOARD. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Harold M. Wheelahan, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Jesse James Marks, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, Donald J. Wall, Div. of Administration, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.
Before REDMANN, BEER and GARRISON, JJ.
Plaintiff, Peggy L. Wheelahan, appeals from dismissal of her suit following the sustaining of defendant's exception of no cause of action. We affirm, but modify the district court's judgment to allow plaintiff the opportunity to amend her petition to state a cause of action.
Ms. Wheelahan, an employee of the State of Louisiana and a member of the State of Louisiana Employees Uniform Group Benefits Program, filed suit in a class action to enforce reimbursement of money paid for treatment of a nervous disorder. She based her claim for benefits on R.S. 22:213.2, and sought penalties and attorney's fees as provided by R.S. 22:657(A). Defendants filed exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action. The district court upheld the exception of no cause of action without assigning written reasons.
The peremptory exception of no cause of action tests the sufficiency in law of plaintiff's petition to allow recovery by anyone against the defendants. The exception is triable solely on the face of the petition and any annexed documents or exhibits, with all well-pleaded allegations of fact conceded as true. No evidence may be admitted to support or controvert the exception. The exception must be overruled unless the allegations affirmatively established that under no facts admissible under the allegations of the petition does plaintiff have a cause of action, and any doubts must be resolved in favor of the sufficiency of the pleading to state a cause of action. La.Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 927(4), 931; Guillory v. Nicklos Oil & Gas Co., 315 So.2d 878 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1975); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975). The petition must set forth the material facts upon which the cause of action is based (C.C.P. Art. 891), and the allegations must be ultimate facts; conclusions of law or fact and evidentiary facts will not be considered. Farrell v. Farrell, 275 So.2d 489 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973); Marmolejo v. Fairmont Roosevelt Hotel Co., 301 So.2d 375 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1974).
The basic factual allegations in Wheelahan's petition are as follows:
The relevant portion of R.S. 22:213.2, upon which plaintiff bases her claim, is the following:
The rest of the statute prescribes certain conditions to be fulfilled before benefits may be payable, and provides effective dates for the statute.
Defendant-appellant argues that R.S. 22:213.2 does not apply to defendant because the State Employers Uniform Group Benefit Program is not "insurance" subject to the State Insurance Code. In the alternative, defendant argues even if the Benefit Program is subject to the Insurance Code, plaintiff has no cause of action because she is not a "policyholder" under the statute. We agree. We do not decide here whether the state employees benefit program is subject to the Insurance Code. Whether it is or not, plaintiff Wheelahan has neither a cause of action nor a right of action under R.S. 22:213.2. If the state employees benefit program is not subject to the Insurance Code, obviously plaintiff has no cause of action under a statute which is not applicable to defendant. Even if defendant is subject to the Insurance Code, however, plaintiff has no right of action because under R.S. 22:215(A)(1)(a), her employer is the policyholder; she is not. The only parties named by the statute are the insurer and the policyholder.
Although plaintiff does not have a cause of action under R.S. 22:213.2, we must still examine her pleading to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alexander and Alexander, Inc. v. State, Div. of Admin.
...of the objection pleaded by the exception are of such a nature might be removed by amendment. Wheelahan v. State, Louisiana State Claims Review Board, 376 So.2d 576 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979); Menard v. Associated Royal Crown Bottling Co., 249 So.2d 363 (La.App. 4th Cir.1971). As a general rule......
-
State v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of City of Tallulah, 20,852-CA
...facts. Conclusions of law or fact and evidentiary facts will not be considered. Wheelahan v. State of Louisiana through the Louisiana State Claims Review Board, 376 So.2d 576 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979); Farrell v. Farrell, 275 So.2d 489 (La.App. 1st Cir.1973). The character of plaintiff's actio......
-
Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, Through Juge v. Neyrey
...the cause of action is based. Conclusions of law or fact will not be considered. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 891; Wheelahan v. State Claims Review Board, 376 So.2d 576 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979). An exception of no cause of action is appropriately sustained only when, assuming the plaintiff's allegations t......
-
Updegraff v. Parish of St. Bernard
...an indispensable party, because the trial court is without discretion and is required to do so. Wheelahan v. State through Louisiana State Claims Review Bd., 376 So.2d 576 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979). Dismissal of the suit would have been error. Newman v. Polite, 400 So.2d 1186 (La.App. 1st Cir.......