185 So. 3d 269
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Class-action settlement in 2014 resolved claims against several defendants and third-party defendants for alleged improper workers’ compensation medical billing; the settlement was approved by a February 3, 2014 final judgment.
- Paragraph 7(C) of the Settlement Agreement purported to reserve claims against Stratacare, its insurers, and Bestcomp for transactions not involving certain named parties, but mistakenly included Rehab Review.
- Settling parties later agreed the inclusion of Rehab Review was inadvertent and jointly moved to correct Paragraph 7(C) to remove Rehab Review.
- Insurers of Stratacare (Appellants) opposed the correction, filing exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, res judicata, and no right of action; the trial court denied the exceptions and entered a June 23, 2015 judgment amending Paragraph 7(C).
- Appellants appealed; appellees argued the amendment judgment was final and appealable (or moved to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory). The appellate court found it had jurisdiction and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal | Appellees: June 2015 judgment amended a final judgment and is appealable | Appellants: June 2015 order was interlocutory and not appealable | Court: February 2014 judgment was final; amendment created a new final, appealable judgment — jurisdiction exists |
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to amend the February 2014 judgment | Settling parties: amendment corrected an undisputed clerical error and reflected parties’ consent | Appellants: amendment was substantive and barred by La. Code Civ. P. art. 1951 (and untimely) | Court: parties’ consent permits amendment (even substantive); no time limit imposed by parties or jurisprudence; trial court had jurisdiction |
| Whether the correction was barred by res judicata | Settling parties: amendment superseded and vacated prior text, restoring claims where intended | Appellants: prior judgment dismissed Rehab Review–related claims with prejudice, so res judicata bars reinstatement | Court: June 2015 judgment supersedes prior Paragraph 7(C); res judicata exception properly denied |
| Whether appellees have a right of action against Appellants after amendment | Settling parties: they retain reserved claims against Stratacare and its insurers as corrected | Appellants: no right of action because claims were previously dismissed | Court: because the judgment was amended by consent to remove Rehab Review from the release, appellees retain the right to pursue those claims; exception denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Villaume v. Villaume, 363 So.2d 448 (La. 1978) (parties may consent to alter a judgment, and consent can validate substantive changes)
- Tenneco, Inc. v. Harold Stream Inv. Trust, 394 So.2d 744 (La. App.) (amended judgment creates new delay for appeal)
- Webster v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., Inc., 603 So.2d 761 (La. App.) (substantive amendment in violation of art. 1951 is null)
- McLemore v. Fox, 609 So.2d 1209 (La. App.) (timing of amendment relative to appeal delay may be immaterial where parties consent)
- LaBove v. Theriot, 597 So.2d 1007 (La. 1992) (discussing amendment of judgments by consent)
- Khoobehi Properties, L.L.C. v. Baronne Dev. No. 2, L.L.C., 178 So.3d 647 (La. App.) (judgment rendered after a new trial supersedes and vacates previous judgment)