287 So.3d 728
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Stephen Ricketson, an employee of KCJS (KOS) Trucking, died when his vehicle was struck by a train on May 10, 2015; his widow, Sasha Ricketson, was receiving workers’ compensation death benefits.
- Tina Ramus filed a disputed claim on behalf of her daughter Madison Ricketson asserting Madison was a biological child and a dependent entitled to a share of death benefits.
- KCJS moved for summary judgment (July 16, 2018), arguing Ramus failed to show Madison was a dependent at the time of death.
- Ramus filed an opposition (filed Aug. 10, 2018) but did not serve opposing counsel until Aug. 22; she later filed a supplemental opposition. KCJS filed a reply and a motion to strike.
- The OWC granted KCJS’s motion to strike and then granted summary judgment dismissing Ramus’s claim with prejudice. On appeal the court vacated the motion-to-strike judgment but affirmed the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to strike is a proper vehicle to object to documents offered in support/opposition to a summary judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 966D(2) | Ramus: motion to strike is not proper; objection should have a contradictory hearing | KCJS relied on the motion to strike to exclude untimely/defective evidence | Court: motion to strike is not a proper means under art. 966D(2); judgment granting motion to strike vacated, but exclusion of evidence upheld on other grounds |
| Whether Ramus’s opposition and its exhibits were timely filed/served under art. 966B/9666 | Ramus: opposition should be considered (filed Aug. 10) | KCJS: opposition was not served timely (served Aug. 22), so evidence untimely and subject to exclusion | Held: service was untimely; trial court properly excluded untimely evidence |
| Whether the documents Ramus submitted (birth certificate photo, SSA correspondence, old child-support notice) were admissible summary-judgment evidence | Ramus: exhibits and affidavit create genuine issue of dependency | KCJS: exhibits were unsworn/unauthenticated and thus inadmissible; affidavit fails to authenticate or prove dependency at death | Held: non‑affidavit exhibits inadmissible; affidavit insufficient to authenticate or establish dependency at time of death |
| Whether Madison was a dependent of Ricketson under La. R.S. 23:1251/1252 at the time of death | Ramus: SSA benefits, alleged child-support order, and affidavit show dependency | KCJS: no proof of valid child-support order at time of death; Madison was not living with decedent; no proof of actual dependency | Held: no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for KCJS affirmed — dependency not established |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Bannon v. Moriah Technologies, Inc., 248 So. 3d 392 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2018) (summary judgment standards in workers’ compensation mirror ordinary civil actions)
- Galliano v. CB & I, LLC, 275 So. 3d 906 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2019) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment evidence)
- Board of Ethics Matter of Monsour, 233 So. 3d 625 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (unsworn/unauthenticated documents have no evidentiary value on summary judgment)
- Raborn v. Albea, 221 So. 3d 104 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (timeliness requirements for filing/serving opposition evidence under art. 966B are mandatory)
- Adolph v. Lighthouse Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 316 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (motion to strike is not a proper means to raise objections to documents under art. 966D(2))