188 So. 3d 1129
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On December 19, 2002, Deborah Beebe was injured at work and filed a disputed claim (Form 1008) on July 21, 2003.
- On November 16, 2004, the WCJ entered judgment awarding Beebe $7,666.25 in medical bills plus $6,000 in penalties and attorney fees, and ordered employer Paul Eikert to pay/authorize past, present, and future medicals.
- Eikert says he was unaware of the 2004 judgment until 2014 and filed a petition to nullify it and later argued the judgment had prescribed for failure to be revived within ten years.
- Beebe filed a petition to revive the judgment in January 2015 and argued the judgment was not a ‘‘money judgment’’ subject to La. C.C. art. 3501 because it included ongoing future medical obligations.
- The WCJ ruled the 2004 judgment was not a money judgment and need not be revived; denied nullity and prescription exceptions.
- This appellate court reversed, holding the 2004 judgment is a money judgment that prescribed because it was not timely revived within ten years.
Issues
| Issue | Beebe's Argument | Eikert's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2004 workers’ compensation judgment is a "money judgment" subject to the ten-year revival requirement (La. C.C. art. 3501) | The judgment is not a money judgment because it contains ongoing/future medical obligations; thus it need not be revived | The judgment is a money judgment (lump-sum for past medicals + penalties/fees) and the money-portion prescribed because it was not revived within ten years | The court held the 2004 judgment is a money judgment and, because Beebe’s revival motion was filed after ten years, the judgment prescribed |
| Whether other filings (e.g., Eikert’s petition to nullify, pleadings, judgment-debtor exam) interrupted or suspended the ten-year prescriptive period | Filing by either party or subsequent court activity interrupted prescription and/or expanded time to revive as an incidental demand | Revival must be by ex parte motion under La. C.C.P. art. 2031 within ten years; other filings do not substitute for revival | The court held the exclusive method to prevent prescription of a money judgment is revival under art. 2031 and those other filings did not save the judgment from prescription |
Key Cases Cited
- Knotts v. Snelling Temporaries, 665 So.2d 657 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1995) (discusses employer obligation to furnish medical expenses and that liability for medicals arises as incurred)
- Jones v. City of New Orleans, 20 So.3d 518 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2009) (workers’ compensation awards of periodic future benefits until disability ceases are not money judgments subject to art. 3501 revival)
- Cassiere v. Cuban Coffee Mills, 74 So.2d 193 (La. 1954) (revival is the exclusive method to prevent prescription of a money judgment)
- Bahan v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 191 So.2d 668 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1966) (same principle that revival is required to stop prescription of a money judgment)