Charles E. Lewis VS Richard L. Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Corrections, James Leblanc, Warden and Leslie Schmidt, Director of Nursing
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0143 CHARLES E LEWIS VERSUS RICHARD L STALDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CORRECTIONS JAMES LeBLANC WARDEN LESLIE SCHMIDT DIRECTOR OF NURSING 0 Judgment Rendered JUN 1 1 2010 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 563 229 Honorable Wilson Fields Judge Presiding Winnsboro Louisiana PlaintiffAppellant In Proper Person Tunde M Animashaun Counsel for Defendant Appellee Baton Rouge Louisiana Richard L Stalder Former Secretary Charles E Lewis Louisiana Department Of Public Safety Corrections James LeBlanc Secretary Louisiana Department of Public Safety Corrections Leslie Schmidt Director Of Nursing for Dixon Correctional Center BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLrON 33 McCLENDON I Charles E Lewis an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections filed a proceeding under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act CARP LSAR 15 etseq requesting a refund of S 1177 his copayments for medical treatment and prescriptions related to his asthma condition The Department denied plaintiff request and he appealed that s decision to the 19 Judicial District Court On appeal in addition to seeking review of the Department denial of a refund of his copayments plaintiff also s alleged that prison personnel displayed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs He sought damages arising from such treatment The district court noted that a review of the record shows that the only issue raised throughout the CARP process was whether the Department can assess him a medical copayment for treatment for asthma The district court indicated that there was no mention of any claim for damages related to his medical treatment in the administrative record Accordingly the district court dismissed all claims raised for the first time on appeal as being in violation of LSAR 15 and for failure to file them in the mandatory venue and S 1177 A proper form as required under LSAR 15 The district court remanded S 1184 the matter to the Department noting that the Department failed to consider whether plaintiff was required to make copayments based on his alleged chronic respiratory ailment Following the remand the Department found that plaintiff position was s correct and that he was entitled to a refund of his co payments totaling 16 00 related to his treatment for asthma Although plaintiff maintained that his prison account was never properly reimbursed Karissa Estes a Department of Corrections Account Specialist II testified that 16 was deposited into 00 s plaintiff account and the funds were utilized to pay debts plaintiff owed After payment of the outstanding debts a balance of 1 remained and the 93 1 The Department had denied relief because plaintiff medical visits were all self initiated s without addressing either the work illness or the chronic illness exclusions 2 Department forwarded the monies to plaintiff for his benefit and use Because the Department refunded plaintiff scopayments the district court dismissed the appeal as moot Plaintiff has appealed the district court ruling asserting that the 16 s 00 was not properly paid and that he has only received 1 93 Plaintiff also contends that he is entitled to damages as a result of his physical pain and suffering arising from defendants deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs Review of a decision by the Department made in the course of CARP shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record The review shall be limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy request filed at the agency level Lightfoot v Stalder 001120 p 6 La 1 Cir 6 808 So 710 715 writ App 01 22 2d denied 01 2295 La 8 823 So 957 The district court properly noted 02 30 2d that the only issues before it was whether plaintiff was entitled to a 16 credit 00 related to his asthma treatment and whether those funds had been placed into his account The record reflects that both issues were decided in favor of the plaintiff The issue of damages for inadequate medical treatment and deliberate indifference were not raised in the administrative proceedings and therefore could not be considered on appeal by the district court Similarly the s Department action in deducting the balances plaintiff allegedly owed from the 00 16 credited to plaintiffs account was not at issue in the appeal In light of the foregoing we affirm the judgment of the district court Costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiff Charles E Lewis AFFIRMED 3 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0143 CHARLES E LEWIS VERSUS RICHARD L STALDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS JAMES LeBLANC WARDEN PUBLIC SAFETY LESLIE SCHMIDT DIRECTOR OF NURSING DOWNING J concurs and assigns reasons It is beyond my comprehension that a 14 case has made it to the 00 court of appeal
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
