Opinion
No. 2022-C-01369.
02-07-2023
Robert LAPOINT v. COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY and Stephens TPS, Inc.
Applying for Reconsideration, Parish of Calcasieu, Office of Workers' Compensation, District 3 Number(s) 13-06349, 15-2726, 17-1901, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) WCA 20-388.
Application for reconsideration not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6.
Hughes, J., would grant.
Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., would grant.
GENOVESE, J., would grant and assigns the following reasons:
Supreme Court Rule IX, Sec. 6, states that "[a]n application for rehearing will not be considered when the court has merely granted or denied an application for a writ of certiorari or a remedial or other supervisory writ...." In this case, Plaintiff's original writ was denied 4-3, with three justices voting to grant the writ. I was one of the three justices voting to grant the writ. It was obviously a close case.
Consequently, Plaintiff filed an application for rehearing (reconsideration) with this Court, which was "not considered," citing Supreme Court Rule IX, Sec. 6 (hereinabove referred to), again 4-3, with the three justices who voted to grant the original writ voting to grant Plaintiff's application for rehearing.
The problem I have implementing this supreme court rule, and not considering this application for rehearing (reconsideration), is the fact that not all applications for rehearing (reconsideration) after a writ denial are "not considered." Some have been granted, and there lies the inconsistency. Either the rule must be amended, or else all applications for rehearing (reconsideration) must not be considered. There must be consistency. I find this 4-3 writ denial warrants a writ grant to address the merits of the case. If the rule has been broken once before (and it has on more than one occasion), it can be broken again—until it is fixed via consistent as opposed to arbitrary application.