LAURA GUILLOT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR MAY GUILLOT VS LECC-BATON ROUGE INC., LOUISIANA EXTENDED CARE CENTERS, INC., LANDMARK OF BATON ROUGE, L.L.P. AND DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2005 CA 2537 AS LEGAL LAURA GUILLOT INDIVIDUALLY REPRESENTATIVE FOR MAY GUILLOT VERSUS LOUISIANA EXTENDED CARE LECC BATON ROUGE INC CENTERS INC LANDMARK OF BATON ROUGE L L P NTY DOESONETHROUGHT DEe 2 8 2006 Judgment rendered On Appeal from the 19th Parish of East Baton Judicial District Court Rouge Suit Number 524 060 The Honorable Curtis A Jack W Harang Division J 25 Calloway Judge Presiding Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Laura Guillot as individually legal representative for May Guillot Mobile AL C Blair State of Louisiana Counsel for Defendants Appellees Bright New Orleans LA LECC Baton Rouge Louisiana Extended Inc Inc are Centers Landmark of Baton Rouge LLP BEFORE p lto a 9 PETTIGREW DOWNING AND HUGHES JJ DOWNING J In this medical of prescription Centers Inc 1 filed malpractice The trial the trial Ms Guillot May Guillot Guillot an then entered judgment court exception Louisiana Extended Care Inc Rouge sustained court by Laura Guillot individually and the suit filed For the Baton by LECC Landmark case dismissing legal representative of as appeals the judgment dismissing her suit following reasons we reverse Louisiana Revised Statute 9 5628 malpractice must occurrence La brought within be RS Patients 47 1299 40 Compensation Fund PCF one this of the issuance of the The issue notified that Specifically employee opinion presented herein the Medical was a or states in pertinent part claim shall a in must be instituted ninety days is the claimant following his attorney by the medical review panel to when the Review resolution of this issue a review of a until Part by certified mail notification act claim filed with the a A 2 47 299 suspend the time within which suit with alleged suspends the running of prescription filing of the request for accordance claim for medical a of the year provides that Louisiana Revised Statute 40 1 The that provides Panel depends plaintiff had on or was rendered whether a effectively opinion its UPS postal store putative mandatory authorized to accept service on behalf of Ms Guillot The essential facts became a suffering long a term fall she care was are as follows 2002 Ms Guillot s admitted to a Defendants were incorrectly rehabilitation on referred to a in the Ms Guillot facility October 31 attorney Briana Rivera who Louisiana and California filed 1 May Guillot resident of Landmark On October 22 2001 officially discharged from Landmark 27 On October 14 2000 On 2001 was after was September licensed in both malpractice claim against Landmark with petition 2 as Landmark ofBaton Rouge Nursing Home Ms Rivera used her California address when the PCF claim but later associated with Jack W On January Mr rendered letter a informing letter attorney in Louisiana The letter also panel decision the PCF that he requested all correspondence his address in Mandeville Louisiana to him at On sent Ms Guillot represented mailed Harang an several months before the 2004 27 Harang originally filing the was now to be 2 April 16 2004 John Wellman the PCF attorney sent a certified informing all parties that the Medical Review Panel had rendered its decision Harang instead of However mailing address in Louisiana the s a copy of the decision to Mr correspondence was only sent to Ms Rivera in California In the meantime due to medical reasons in California and had her mail forwarded to a Ms Rivera closed her office UPS post office box On April 24 2004 the PCF certified letter addressed to Ms Rivera arrived at the UPS post office However instead of placing box that the post office had for the certified certified parcel certified On parcel and a a s post office parcel for her the postal clerk signed May 10 immediately notice in Ms Rivera 2004 Ms Rivera forwarded the decision picked to Mr up the Harang in Louisiana Mr May Harang did 10 2004 that at least prescribed that a bone sustained 2 not file suit immediately Instead he calculated from the date he received notice of the decision one On scan hundred and seventeen and determined days remained before the matter September 1 2004 he filed suit against Landmark alleging performed injuries during on her Ms Rivera did not formally withdraw October 23 2001 confirmed that Ms Guillot stay at Landmark as counsel ofrecord in this litigation 3 Landmark began the to 24 2004 April run on letter certified the Landmark argues that when rendered that is effective We individual note postal in the attorney however employee store citing Trusty 11 12 03 861 to to v So 2d 634 different than when an office legislation accept a given notice of the or Co s that would allow a 3 certified mai1 s 03 289 La App Instead 5 Cir Landmark contends that this situation is attorney attempts to an accept the attorney to custom customer Allstate Ins was not authority that authorizes no s August 26 2004 claim that service a of defeat service no by simply refusing retrieve his mail Be that determination at the as on hearing it may there is the merits of this Although both a ever parties introduced into the record minutes do not support or from the controvert the petition evidence the alleged in the Louisiana Civil Code article 1 provides our correspondence and indication that any exhibits hearing was not were transcribed and the being introduced exception evidence 931 art of prescription petition which that halts Neither side introduced evidence defense of prescription if its LSA C C P objection problem refer to various no The reflect any documents At the trial of a peremptory threshold matter proofs of service there is absolutely 3 defeat for exception an was counsel is co to enough certified mail Nor does it cite any UPS one filing suit that Landmark cites employed not filed Landmark that the deadline for prescription date representative signed the UPS day Consequently prescription claiming opinion being calculated that the the other hand on must be must grounds do not appear Generally in the absence of be decided based upon the facts accepted that the sources oflaw 4 may be introduced to are as true legislation Kirby v and custom Field 04 La 1898 p 6 2467 1 Cir 9 23 05 App La 3 24 06 925 2d So the party the burden of the proof King preponderance Here prescription is since Landmark has otherwise or that the UPS accept service for Ms Rivera the burden of proof has a court court judgment on the face of proving that the shown employee or that by La 9 case had any evidence authorized was prescription has to run conclude that under these not shown that either Ms Rivera or erred in Medical the Mr Review Harang decision 4 sustaining the exception of prescription is reversed opinion is issued This memorandum evident p we by certified mail of Accordingly the trial 98 1805 met careful review of the record received notice not not correspondence s been not facts Landmark has and the trial L L P Phelps Dunbar v 188 prescribed Consequently specific is evident from the face of the Thus Landmark had the burden of petition After prescription raising the peremptory exception of prescription bears 743 So 2d 181 6 4 99 writ denied 05 135 1230 The law is clear unless pleadings 923 So 2d 131 Appeal Rule 2 lB l6 In All costs of this Rules Courts of assessed against the defendant appellee LECC Extended Care Centers Inc accordance with Uniform Baton Landmark of Baton Inc Rouge Rouge L L appeal P are Louisiana et al REVERSED 4 We do not decide whether actual to re commence not raised 011 the appeal running and is receipt ofnotice vitiates the requirement of prescription not before us as provided by today 5 La R S 40 that notice be 47 1299 A 2 a by ceIiified mail This issue was
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.
