599 So. 2d 1089 | La. | 1992
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
The district court undoubtedly had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a worker’s compensation claim. The jurisdictional issue is more properly one of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident employer, since La.Rev.Stat. 23:1035.1 focuses on the contacts among the defendant, the litigation and the forum state relating to a contract of employment made in this state and the locality of employment activities. Another issue may be the applicable choice of laws among Louisiana, North Carolina
Lead Opinion
Writ granted and made peremptory.
Defendant’s exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction raised the issue of whether plaintiff, who was injured in an accident which occurred in North Carolina while employed by a Florida corporation, is entitled to benefits under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Law. R.S. 23:1035.1. The issue was never tried because the trial court overruled the exception without a hearing and refused to reconsider the issue at trial. Although defendant was allowed to make a proffer at trial, plaintiff did not have reason or opportunity to offer evidence in support of the applicability of the Louisiana law because the ruling of the trial court was in his favor.
The evidence in the record is, therefore, insufficient to adjudicate the issue. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal reversing the judgment of the district court and sustaining defendant’s exception is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for the taking of additional evidence on the issue of applicability of the Louisiana Workers Compensation Law.