Peters v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
52 So. 3d 229
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Peters was a Greyhound driver who suffered a panic attack on Feb. 1, 2007 tied to a passenger altercation.
- He filed a disputed workers’ compensation claim; Greyhound denied the claim and trial occurred on Dec. 5, 2008.
- OWC found a compensable injury and awarded Peters benefits on Jan. 13, 2009, with TTD set by a joint stipulation at $333.00 weekly based on a $500 AWW.
- Greyhound’s appeal led to affirmance by this Court; Peters did not appeal the 2009 judgment.
- On Dec. 1, 2009 Peters moved to amend judgment to correct calculation errors after discovering a higher AWW ($806.30) and proposed TTD of $478.00.
- OWC denied the motion on Jan. 15, 2010; Peters timely appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 1951 allows substantive amendment | Peters argues Article 1951 permits correction of calculation errors in the judgment. | Greyhound contends amendments under Article 1951 are clerical only and cannot alter substance. | No substantive amendment allowed under Article 1951. |
| Whether correct AWW should be determined under RS 23:1021 | Peters contends AWW was $806.30 per statute and adjust TTD to $478. | Greyhound asserts AWW was properly fixed by the joint stipulation at $500. | AWW remains the stipulated amount; no change required. |
| Whether OWC erred in not calculating AWW at $478 | Peters asserts the TTD should reflect $478/week based on higher AWW. | Greyhound argues the stipulated AWW governs and no recalculation is permitted after judgment. | No error; calculation based on stipulation and law of the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourgeois v. Kost, 846 So. 2d 692 (La. 2003) (signed judgments cannot be altered except by law)
- Becht v. Morgan Bldg. & Spas, Inc., 843 So. 2d 1109 (La. 2003) (stipulations bind the court as law of the case)
- Palmer v. Leclercq, 996 So. 2d 21 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (stipulations can affect the judgment only if not legal-substantive)
- Nichols v. Nichols, 4 So. 3d 134 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (review of calculations tied to stipulations)
- Denton v. State Farm, 998 So. 2d 48 (La. 2008) (clarifies scope of Article 1951 for clerical vs substantive errors)
- Cain v. Aquarius Builders, Inc., 680 So.2d 69 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1996) (stipulations bind the parties when not contrary to law)
- Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 256 So.2d 105 (La. 1971) (law-of-the-case doctrine supports finality of appellate decisions)