Eаrl Mae WELLER v. Margie BROWN, D/B/A Cattleman‘s Restaurant and Rockwood Insurance Company.
No. 2001 CA 0314.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
March 28, 2002.
813 So. 2d 635
Before: WHIPPLE, FOGG, and GUIDRY, JJ.
David T. Butler, Jr., Baton Rouge, Counsel for Defendants/Appеllants Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association & Margie Brown d/b/a Cattleman‘s Restaurant.
GUIDRY, J.
In this workers’ compensation case, appellants, Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (hereafter referred to as “LIGA“) and Margie Brown d/b/a Cattleman‘s Restaurant, appeal the trial court‘s judgment nullifying and vacating its previous judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 1, 1976, appellee, Earl Maе Weller, was injured in the course and scope of her employment as a waitress at Cattleman‘s Restaurant. Ms. Weller thereafter filed suit against her employer, Margie Brown d/b/a Cattleman‘s Restaurant, and her employer‘s workers’ compensation insurer, Rockwood Insurance Company, seeking workers’ compensation benefits. The matter was tried on January 22, 1979, and in a judgment signed on February 13, 1979, the trial court awarded Ms. Weller wеekly compensation benefits
Thereafter, LIGA, as statutory successor to the insolvent Rockwood Insurance Company, filed a petition in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court seeking termination and/or modification of the workers’ compensation benefits awarded to Ms. Weller pursuant to the February 13, 1979 judgment. The matter was tried on May 5, 1997, and judgment was signed on June 25, 1997, whereby the trial court concluded that Ms. Weller remained totally and permanently disabled and ordered LIGA to continue to pay her $80.78 per week in disability benefits. The trial court further ordered LIGA to pay all travel expenses for treatment of Ms. Weller‘s work-related injury, including past and future travel expenses. Additionally, the trial court ordered LIGA to pay for all unpaid chiropractic treatment rendеred by Dr. Stanley Mouk.
Subsequently, LIGA successfully appealed the June 25, 1997 judgment whereupon this court reversed the trial court‘s finding that Ms. Weller was totally and permanently disabled and entitled to continued benefits.2 After Ms. Weller‘s request for rehearing was denied,3 she unsuccessfully petitioned the Louisiana Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.4
On May 23, 2000, Ms. Weller filed a petition in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court seeking to nullify the June 25, 1997 judgment, alleging that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Thereafter, on August 16, 2000, Ms. Weller filed a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing on the motion, judgment was rendered vacating the June 25, 1997 judgment and dismissing LIGA‘s petition, originally filed on February 1, 1993, seeking termination of Ms. Wellеr‘s benefits with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. From this judgment signed on October 27, 2000, LIGA and Margie Brown d/b/a Cattleman‘s Restaurant now appeal.5
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
In their sole assignment of error, the appellants contend thаt the trial court erred in holding that the Nineteenth Judicial District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear LIGA‘s petition
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria governing the district cоurt‘s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Industrial Indemnity Company of the Northwest v. Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, 99-2535, p. 8 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/22/00), 775 So.2d 1246, 1250-1251, writ denied, 01-0225 (La.4/12/01), 790 So.2d 1. A motion for summary judgment shall be granted only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In the present case, there are no factual disputes. In reviewing legal issues, the appellate court gives no special weight to the findings of the trial court, but exercises its constitutional duty to review questions of law and renders judgment on the record. State, Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission v. Louisiana State Police Riverboat Gaming Enforcement Division, 95-2355, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.8/21/96), 694 So.2d 316, 319.
Action for Nullity
A finаl judgment is void and shall be annulled if it is rendered by a court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit and an action to annul on these grounds may be brought at any time.
Appellants assert that the ground for nullity appeared in the record, as it was clear that the date of injury was April 1, 1976, and therefore Article 2005 applies and precluded Ms. Weller from seeking annulment of the June 25, 1997, judgment. However, appellants fail to recognize that the plain language of the codal provision suggests that the restrictions listed are disjunctive. See
Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Workers’ Compensation Actions
Historically, an employee with a disputed workers’ compensation claim filed a civil suit in state district court.
This process of dispute resоlution was changed again by Act 938 of the 1988 legislative session. The act was to become effective January 1, 1990, and established a system whereby nine administrative hearing officers were “vested with original, exclusive jurisdiction over all claims filed pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act.”6 Long v. Insurance Company of North America, 595 So.2d at 637. More importantly, the Act relegated district courts to the sole role of enforcing orders of the OWC hearing officers by divesting the district courts of dе novo review and providing for direct appeal of the hearing officers’ decisions to the circuit courts of appeal. Ross v. Highlands Insurance Company, 590 So.2d 1177, 1180 (La.1991). Although initially Act 938 was declared unconstitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Moore v. Roemer, 567 So.2d 75, 77 (La.1990), for violating
Through Acts 1989 No. 260, the legislature amended Acts 1988 No. 938 to facilitate the transition of jurisdiction from the district сourts to the new OWC hearing officer system. Act 260 states in pertinent part:
Section 4. (A) A claim arising from an injury which occurred prior to July 1, 1983, shall be resolved in the same manner as other civil matters.
(B) A claim arising from an injury which occurred on or after July 1, 1983, shall be heard and resolved according to the procedures provided for in this Act.
(C) However, claims filed with the director prior to January 1, 1990, but which are not resolved, whether by the parties’ acceptance of the director‘s recommendations, compromise settlement, or judgment of a court, shall be resolved by the procedures in effect prior to January 1, 1990.
In Ross, the supreme cоurt had occasion to interpret the language and application of Act 938, as amended by Act 260, to determine when jurisdiction rested with the district court and when it rested with the OWC. The supreme court set forth the following сonsiderations as pertinent to the resolution of the jurisdiction issue: (1) the proper characterization of the petition is at the heart of the jurisdiction issue; (2) a new claim is clearly covered by the post-amendment procedure requiring OWC to hear claims in the first instance; (3) the term “resolved” as used in the Act refers to matters in need of no further handling, under the old system or the new; (4) though not defined in the Act, the context of the provisions makes it clear that “claim” refers to the underlying claim for relief, not enforcement of a judgment; and (5) the OWC clearly has to hear cases seeking modification in the first instance. See Ross v. Highlands Insurance Company, 590 So.2d at 1181-1183; CNA Insurance Company v. Tibbitts, 94-684, p. 3-4 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1994), 647 So.2d 633, 635.
As Ross makes cleаr, if a petition seeks modification of a prior judgment, the
Appellants nevertheless contend that the supreme court decision in Fauchaux v. City of New Orleans, 95-2500 (La.1/12/96), 666 So.2d 285, supports their position that jurisdiction was proper in the district court because the petition was a claim arising from an injury which occurred prior to July 1, 1983. However, in Fauchaux, the claim involved was an initial claim for benefits, not a modification of an existing judgment. As Ross and Shell clearly state, a petition for modification filed after January 1, 1990, must be heard in the OWC.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court finding the June 25, 1997 judgment to be an absolute nullity and vacating the same for lack of subjеct matter jurisdiction. All costs of this appeal in the amount of $3,865.51 are to be borne equally by the appellants, Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association and Margie Brown d/b/a Cattleman‘s Restaurant.
AFFIRMED.