99 So. 3d 1035
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ms. lies was permanently disabled in a 2004 automobile collision and requires lifetime attendant care.
- A final judgment ordered payment of future medical care and related benefits; AAIC (state’s excess insurer) and its surety argued future expenses must be paid only when incurred.
- Trial court denied immediate lump-sum transfer of funds to FMCF but ordered future attendant care payments at $10.00/hour (family) and $14.50/hour (commercial).
- Ms. lies sought to have funds transferred to FMCF or paid directly to her; the court held funds cannot be paid until incurred and cannot be transferred immediately.
- The court found La.R.S. 13:5106 B(3)(c) applies to the state’s insurer and does not permit lump-sum payments to the claimant.
- The court declined to address the statute’s constitutionality because it was not properly raised by pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 13:5106(B)(3)(c) to AAIC | lies contends AAIC is covered by 13:5106(B)(3)(c). | AAIC/State argues the statute governs the state and its agencies, not private insurers. | Applicable to AAIC; funds paid to providers as incurred. |
| Right to lump-sum transfer to FMCF | Should transfer all future awards immediately to FMCF. | Statute requires future benefits be paid as incurred to providers. | Affirmed denial of lump-sum transfer; funds paid as incurred. |
| Constitutionality of La.R.S. 13:5106(B)(3)(c) | Argues vagueness and taking/due process concerns. | Constitutionality not properly raised below; not reviewed. | Not properly before the court; constitutionality not addressed. |
| Inflation adjustments to attendant-care rates | Rates should be inflation-adjusted consistently with 1917(B)(2). | Rates set by the trial court are subject to 1917(B)(2) adjustments; not contested below. | Affirmed $10.00 (family) and $14.50 (commercial); subject to inflation adjustments. |
| Timeliness/proper vehicle for attack on judgment | Could challenge interpretation post-judgment under 13:5106(B)(3)(c). | Final judgment cannot be amended/substantively altered post-judgment; relief via new trial or appeal only. | Affirmed that challenge to procedure post-judgment is not properly before the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Istre v. Meche, 770 So.2d 776 (La. 2000) (special pleading required to attack constitutionality)
- Naquin v. Titan Indemnity Co., 779 So.2d 704 (La. 2001) (insurer applicability under pre/post-date statutes)
- Bourgeois v. Kost, 846 So.2d 692 (La. 2003) (amendment of signed final judgments limits)
- Palmer v. Leclercq, 996 So.2d 21 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008) (substantive amendments not authorized by Article 1951)
- Denton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 998 So.2d 48 (La. 2008) (clarifies clerical vs. substantive amendment)
- Kimball v. Allstate Ins. Co., 712 So.2d 46 (La. 1998) (constitutionality and immunity considerations in statutory context)
- Chamberlain v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 624 So.2d 874 (La. 1993) (legislative waiver and procedural rules against state immunity)