West Jefferson Medical Center Medical Staff, through Jonathan C. Boraski, M.D., K. Barton Farris, M.D., Pablo J. Labadie, M.D. and David C. Treen, Jr. VS The State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals (2011CW1718R)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE Ol LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRC1 I IT 2011 CW 1718R WLS I JEFFERSON MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL STAFF THROUGFI JONATHAN C BORASKL M K BARTON FARRIS M D D PABLO l I M AND DAVID C TREEN JR ABADIE D VERSUS THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS Judgment Rendered n SM 16 2413 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NUMBER SEEKING REVIEW AND REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL OF LSU EXCEPTIONS AT THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL S DISTRICT COURT PEALED 1 ROM IT1E NINE LEE JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT I NTI IN AND FOR I PARISH OF EAS f BATON ROUGE Hl STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER590587 SECTION 27 THE HONORABLE TODD W HERNANDEZ JUDGE Mark S Stein Attorneys for Respondent Mitchell J Hoffman West Jefferson Medical Center Michael New R Medical Staff through Jonathan C Allweiss Boraski M K Barton Farris M D D Orleans Louisiana Pablo J Labadie M and David C Treen D Jr M D Harry J Skip Philips Amy C Lambert Baton Jr Rouge Louisiana Attorneys for Relator The Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College James D Buddy Caldwell Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent State of Louisiana David A Peterson Assistant Attorney General Baton Rouge Louisiana Kimberly L Humbles Douglas L Cade Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE Attorneys for Respondent Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals GUIDRY PETTIGREW McDONALD THERIOT AND DRAKE JJ 5 1 MCDONALD J fhe Supreme Court remanded this case with an instruction to address the issue of subject matterjurisdiction Finding no subject matter jurisdiction the case is dismissed The original petition of the parties was filed in the TwentyFourth Judicial District Court on April 30 2007 The substance of the suit is that a group of doctors practicing at West Jefferson Medical Center voluntarily rendered services to indigent patients after Hurricane Katrina because Charity Hospital in New Orleans had been damaged and was closed The suit was filed to attempt to be compensated for their services from the State or The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 1 H1I The Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College LSU was later added as a defendant The suit was transferred to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court by the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal after a hearing on a venue exception was appealed and it was determined that the Nineteenth Judicial District was the proper venue Our opinion only addresses the issue of subject matter jurisdiction A s court subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that cannot be waived or conferred by consent of the parties Cf LSAC art 925 Whittenberg v Nl 97 A C hittenherg 1424 La App l Cir 4 710 So 1 157 1158 98 8 2d The issue addresses the s court authority to adjudicate the cause before it Id A judgment rendered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void Id In this case the defendants contend that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because the suit is against the state and a state agency and the state has not waived sovereign immunity The legal basis for the suit is unjust enrichment The plaintiffs allege that their treatment of the patients was without compensation so they were r impoverished However Charity Hospital which would have provided treatment to these indigent patients had it been in operation receives state and federal funding therefore it is alleged the defendants were enriched Even before the court can address the issue of impoverishmentenrichment it needs to determine the plaintiffs right to successfully maintain the suit The district court also denied the defendants exception raising the objection of No Right of ActionLack of Procedural Capacity We render no opinion on defendants other exceptions Unjust enrichment is wellrecognized in our jurisprudence It is a claim that is mainlained when there is no other legal remedy available The plaintiffs contend the waiver of immunity for contracts includes quasi contract The defendants challenge this claim fhe Louisiana Constitution Article XII 10 provides in pertinent part Neither the state a state agency nor a political subdivision shall be immune from suit and liability in contract or for injury to a person or property The defendants do not maintain that the plaintiffs have no right to sue only that authorization must be received from the Legislature which would effect a waiver of the state sovereign immunity s Plaintiffs rely on the fact that quasi contract was well established prior to the 1971 Constitution and use this to argue that the legislature intended to include it in the waiver of immunity provided in Article X11 10 The extent of recognition of quasi contract is somewhat beside the point Actually if quasi contract were not well recognized in ourjurisprudence one could argue more persuasively that it was meant to be included but escaped notice Ultimately that argument would fail because waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally cxpressed Winn nd r C III I s Product III resin v Depf off ocao a Affi 251 1 a 024 205 So 2d 422 fLa 19 18 s 498 G 89 95 t I I S 453 457 112 L Ed 2d 435 1990 S O 3 It is also argued that quasi contract is synonymous with implied contract citing a U Fifth Circuit Court of appeals case Ironically Le Mieux Bros Inc S the case cited was in fact a contract case The court in that case was noting whether one considered the case to be an implied contract or a quasi contract the rights here sought to be cnf arose out of a contractual relationship Id In rced the matter before us there is no contract and that is precisely why we do not find the waiver of sovereign immunity to include quasi contract when it says contract Contacts require agreement whether it is express or implied that is implied by the nature of the activities of the par ies Quasi contacts exist when the parties have no contractual relationship however circumstances dictate that one party should be compensated for moral or ethical reasons enrichment developed Thus the theory of unjust Plaintiffs case is founded on a theory of unjust enrichment as noted There was no agreement between the state or state agency Charity Hospital to provide services to these indigent patients When Hurricane Katrina forced Charity Hospital to close arrangements could have been made to refer their patients to West Jefferson or to another local hospital The contractual obligation thus transferred would have required the alternate hospital to be paid Instead the physicians voluntarily undertook the treating of these patients for which they are to be commended Unfortunately for them we do not find the waiver of sovereign immunity to include their unjust enrichment claims The Louisiana Constitution expresses a waiver of sovereign immunity for contracts or for injury to a person or property It is well established that this waiver must be strictly construed it cannot be implied Regardless of the ability of plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim to be called a quasi contract it is not a contract The legislature has waived sovereign immunity for contracts Lc Alieus 13ro Inc r Iemoni bunbccr Co 140 F 387 5 Clr 1944 v 2d 4 a Civ Code ail 1906 4 For the foregoing reasons the district court denial of the defendants s exception raising the objection of lack of suhject matter jurisdiction is reversed We dismiss the suit Until the legislature determines whether it wants to waive sovereign immunity for quasi contracts the court lacks jurisdiction for such claims Costs are assessed to plaintiffs REVERSED CASE DISMISSED 5
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.
