Opinion
2024-OC-00138
04-09-2024
MARY BROWN v. WALMART, INC.
IN RE: Mary Brown - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Office of Workers' Compensation, District 7 Number(s) 23-62, Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 23-C-201;
Writ application denied.
WJC
JBM
Weimer, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Hughes, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Justice Griffin.
Crichton, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer and assigns additional reasons.
Genovese, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Justice Griffin.
Griffin, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
WEIMER, C.J., concurring.
Research indicates there are no reported decisions addressing La. R.S. 23:1310.5(F). It is unclear whether the statute's reference to "decisions" is limited to opinions rendered after full appeal or extends to summary dispositions such as the writ grant in the instant case.
La. R.S. 23:1310.5(F) provides:
F. All workers' compensation decisions of the circuit courts of appeal shall be published opinions. The published opinions in any reporter shall identify the office of workers' compensation district from which the appeal was taken and the identity of the workers' compensation judge who rendered the judgment or award that is the subject of appeal. [Emphasis added.]
Louisiana Unif. R. Ct. App. 2-16.3 draws a distinction between opinions and summary dispositions. In the case of formal opinions, the rule requires the opinion to be published unless the court determines otherwise, while summary dispositions are not published unless the court specifically provides otherwise:
(1) A formal opinion of a Court of Appeal shall be designated for publication unless a majority of the panel determines otherwise.
(2) A memorandum opinion or a summary disposition of a Court of Appeal shall not be designated for publication except by majority vote of the panel.
(3) The panel shall reconsider its decision not to publish an opinion upon the request of the trial judge or a party, provided that the request
and reasons therefor are made in writing within the delays for rehearing following the rendition of the opinion. [Emphasis added.]
This distinction is useful in interpreting the term "decision" in La. R.S. 23:1310.5(F), and it is logical to interpret that term to refer to full opinions. Otherwise, the courts of appeal would be placed in the absurd position of publishing writ denials in workers' compensation cases, despite the lack of any precedential value in such dispositions.
La. C.C. art. 9 provides:
When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.
Furthermore, the court's failure to order publication of the disposition does not cause claimant any harm. Louisiana C.C.P. art. 2168 specifically provides for the posting of unpublished opinions on the websites of the courts and allows such opinions to be cited as authority:
A. The unpublished opinions of the supreme court and the courts of appeal shall be posted by such courts on the Internet websites of such courts.
B. Opinions posted as required in this Article may be cited as authority and, if cited, shall be cited by use of the case name and number assigned by the posting court.
It has been verified that the disposition in the instant case is posted in PDF format on the official website of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit. Additionally, the disposition is posted on Westlaw. Brown v. Walmart, Inc., 23-201 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/5/23), 2023 WL 3263482. Under these circumstances, the disposition is fully available to other litigants and may be cited as authority in future cases pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2168(B).
Based on this reasoning, I see no need for this court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
GRIFFIN, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Claimant, Mary Brown, sought supervisory review of a ruling of the Office of Workers' Compensation. On May 5, 2023, the court of appeal rendered a disposition granting the writ in part and denying it in part.
The merits of this ruling are not currently before us and, therefore, will not be discussed.
Claimant filed a motion in the court of appeal requesting the court's decision be published. The court of appeal denied the motion to publish the decision. Claimant now seeks review of this ruling.
Claimant asserted the decision would provide "invaluable guidance" to other courts.
The relevant statute is La. R.S. 23:1310.5(F), which provides:
F. All workers' compensation decisions of the circuit courts of appeal shall be published opinions. The published opinions in any reporter shall identify the office of workers' compensation district from which the appeal was taken and the identity of the workers' compensation judge who rendered the judgment or award that is the subject of appeal. [emphasis added].
When a law is clear and unambiguous, and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written. La. Civ. Code art. 9; Succession of Brandt, 2021-01521 (La. 9/1/22), 346 So.3d 765, 775.
There is no ambiguity in the mandatory language of La. R.S. 23:1310.5(F) when applied to the instant matter. It is undisputed that this matter originates in a workers' compensation dispute. A "decision" is typically understood to mean a "judicial or agency determination after consideration of the facts and the law; esp., a ruling, order, or judgment pronounced by a court when considering or disposing of a case" Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The disposition of the court of appeal in this case, which grants partial relief to claimant, clearly qualifies as a decision. I would therefore find publication of the decision is mandated.
La. R.S. 23:1310.5(F) was enacted in 2001. In 2006, the legislature enacted La. Code Civ. P. art. 2168, which provides:
A. The unpublished opinions of the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal shall be posted by such courts on the Internet websites of such courts.
B. Opinions posted as required in this Article may be cited as authority and, if cited, shall be cited by use of the case name and number assigned by the posting court.Considering the subsequent enactment of La. Code Civ. P. art. 2168, it could be argued the publication requirements of La. R.S 23:1310.5(F) are superfluous. However, this determination must be made by the legislature, not the courts.
CRICHTON, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer and assigns additional reasons:
I agree with the reasons expressed by Chief Justice Weimer in his concurrence. However, I write separately to note that the ambiguity in La. R.S. 23:1310.5(F), as evidence by this Court's divided decision, calls for legislative clarification.