J. Robert Wooley, Commissioner of Insurance for State of Louisiana in his capacity as Liquidator of AmCare Health Plans of Louisiana, Inc. VS Thomas Lucksinger, et al (2006CA1146 Consolidated With 2006CA1147 2006CA1148)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 CA 1146 c w 2006 CA 1147 NUMBER 2006 CA 1149 c w 2006 CA 1150 C W 2006 CA 1151 c w 2006 CA 1448 NUMBER 2006CA 1152 C W 2006 CA 1153 CW 2006 CA 1154 1 ROBERT WOOLEY AS ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS AMCARE HEALTH PLANS OF LOUISIANA INC JAN 1 7 Rendered Appealed from the Nineteenth Distlict Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit Number 499 737 c w 509 297 Honorable Janice Clark Joseph E Baton Cullens Jr Rouge LA c w 512 366 Judge Presiding Counsel for Plaintiff J Robert Wooley of Insurance and as Appellee Acting Commissioner Liquidator of AmCare Health Plans of Louisiana Inc Guy M Hohmann Austin TX Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee J Robert Wooley as Acting Commissioner of Insurance and Liquidator of AmCare Health Plans of Louisiana Inc Kimberly S Morgan Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee 1 Robert Wooley Acting Commissioner of Insurance and Liquidator of AmCare as Health Plans of Louisiana Inc Edward J Walters Jr Baton LA Rouge Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee J Robert Wooley as Acting Commissioner of Insurance and Liquidator of AmCare Health Plans of Louisiana Inc Sue Buser Counsel for Plaintiff Gonzales LA J Robert Wooley of Insurance and as Appellee Acting Commissioner Liquidator of AmCare Health Plans of Louisiana Inc Jonathan C Augustine Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Wooley Acting Commissioner of Insurance and Liquidator of AmCare J Robert as Health Plans of Louisiana Inc James C Counsel for Defendant Baton Health Net Inc Percy Rouge LA David M Kerth Counsel for Defendant Baton Appellant Health Net Inc Rouge LA Robert B Bieck Jr Counsel for Defendant New Orleans LA Health Net Inc Joseph J McKernan Baton Rouge LA Appellant Counsel for Plaintiff Jean Johnson as Appellant Appellee Texas Special Deputy Receiver David M Latham Counsel for Plaintiff New Orleans LA Louisiana Keary L Everitt Counsel for Plaintiff New Orleans LA Louisiana Gary P Koederitz Baton Rouge Counsel for Defendant Baton Thomas S LA and Claude F Reynaud Baton Rouge LA Appellee BestCare Inc Wendell Clark Rouge Appellee Department of Insurance Counsel for Defendant LA Appellee Department of Insurance Jr Lucksinger Stephen Appellee Michael D Nadler J Nazarenus Counsel for Defendant Appellee Proskauer Rose L L P and Stuart L Rosow 2 Philips Jr Baton Rouge LA HalTY J Counsel for Defendant William Galtney Appellee Jr and Michael K Jhin Mary Olive Pierson Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Defendant V Thomas Clark Jr Counsel for Defendant Baton PriceWaterhouseCoopers L L C Rouge PriceWaterhouseCoopers LA Robert J Bums Jr Baton Rouge Appellee LLC Appellee Counsel for Defendant Appellee Greenwich Insurance Company LA David H Topol Washington D C Counsel for Defendant George Counsel for Defendant Greenwich Insurance B Hall Jr Appellee Company Appellee Executive Risk Management and New Orleans LA Executive Risk MelTil Hirsh Specialty Ins Co Counsel for Defendant Executive Risk Kelsey Kornick Funes Baton Rouge LA Appellee Management and Executive Risk D C Washington Specialty Ins Counsel for Defendant Appellee Executive Risk Management and Executive Risk David L Baton Gueny Rouge Co Specialty Counsel for Defendant LA Ins Co Appellee Scott Westbrook William C Kaufman III Counsel for Defendant Baton LA M Lee Pearce Sam Counsel for Amicus Curiae LA Charles C Foti Jr Rouge Dominique J Baton Rouge Appellee Atty Gen On Behalf of the Commissioner of Insurance Liquidator of AmCare Health Plans of Louisiana Inc Michael Charles Baton Rouge Counsel for Amicus Curiae Guy LA Charles C Foti Jr Atty Gen On Behalf of the Commissioner of Insurance Liquidator of AmCare Health Plans of Louisiana Inc BEFORE I The Honorable Philip CIACCIO LANIER AND CLAIBORNE JJ C Ciaccio Honorable Ian W Claiborne Judge Judge retired retired are the Honorable Walter I Lanier Jr serving as Supreme Court 3 judges ad hoc Judge retired and the by special appointment ofthe Louisiana PER CURIAM These show rendered trial judgments court s court For the dismiss these rules cause judgments following appeals vacate issued were determine whether to improperly substantively reasons the grant the rules we subsequent judgments subsequently affected show to original cause and and reinstate the ttial original judgments PROCEDURAL FACTS These three consolidated actions main demands were filed by J Robert Wooley Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Louisiana in his capacity for AmCare Health Plans Liquidator maintenance Net Inc organization hereinafter referred hereinafter referred to as Inc of Louisiana to as Health Net a Louisiana health the Louisiana HMO was joined as as one Health of many defendants Kim Holland Insurance Commissioner for the State of Oklahoma in her as capacity referred to as Receiver for AmCare Health Plans of Oklahoma Inc the Oklahoma HMO and Jean Johnson AmCare Health Plans of Texas Inc intervened in the actions in tort and contract and attorneys as All of the and among other were cases were tried with additional evidence submitted action was a the the Texas HMO plaintiffs asserted It appears the claims 2005 to as causes of action against all defendants settled These consolidated Prior to things sought punitive exemplary damages fees under Texas law except Health Net Special Deputy Receiver of hereinafter refened plaintiffs hereinafter on to June 17 June 20 24 and June 27 30 the court in July 2005 jury trial and the Louisiana and Oklahoma actions commencement of the trial the trial court were The Texas bench trials issued the following order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Bifurcate the Trial of Attornevs Fees Either Through Stipulation of the Parties or the Jury and Through Separate Post Verdict Presentation of Request for Expedited Hearing filed herein by AmCare OK AmCare LA and AmCare TX is GRANTED Emphasis added 4 The record reflects that the June 30 2005 The jury verdict in the Texas jury found Health Net 85 fault at l5 1o at fault and awarded the Texas HMO case was returned on Any other Company 000 00 for compensatory 400 52 damages The Yes jury answered to IntelTogatory 7 that asked preponderance of the evidence that defendant Health in any unfair to or deceptive the Texas HMO A the factual basis for the verdict fix The and an practice that or its creditors or operative language ofV attorneys fees act liability of Health Neither the jury verdict This nor Net for jury This answered Yes to tracks the language and Remedies Code art 41 003 a fix the quantum of the 65 000 000 00 the trial court of language damage tracks the S 16 and establishes reasonable and necessary the judgment the jury memorializing Intenogatory 9 that asked In Do you find Inc acted with malice Texas HMO or its creditors operative language of by or clear gross Emphasis V A T S Civil Practice and b and establishes the factual basis for the liability of Health Net for punitive damages to cause attorney fee negligence regarding the rights of the was added T S Insurance Code art 21 21 by the knowingly engaged proximate convincing evidence that defendant Health Net added Net Inc the was Emphasis Do you find At a bifurcated trial whose purpose punitive damages the jury assessed a sum of subsequent Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict JNOV a reduced this award by 30 On November 4 2005 the trial court rendered and signed essentially similar 2 It appears that bifurcating the liability and quantum issues of a punitive damage cause of action is a well established procedure in civil jury trials in the United States Blatt Hammesfahr and Nugent Punitive Datnages A State by State Guide to Law and Practice g12 pp 7 8 g3 3 pp 97 101 and 137 Ed 2005 It would seem that a bifurcated civil jury trial is required in Louisiana because the wealth ofthe defendant is not relevant evidence for that portion of the trial pertaining to the amount of compensatory damages whereas the wealth ofthe defendant is very relevant in detennining the amount of punitive datnages Mosing v Domas 2002 0012 pp 10 12 La 15 10 02 830 So 2d 967 977 79 Rodriguez v Traylor 468 So 2d 1186 1187 88 La 1985 See for such Bienvenu v Dudley La 12 13 96 95 0547 692 So 2d 1069 example p 6 La App 1 eir 10 3 96 1070 5 682 So 2d 281 284 writs denied 96 2661 96 2673 judgments on the merits in favor of the Louisiana HMO and the Oklahoma HMO hereinafter sometimes referred judgments provide as IT IS committed the HMOs as The peliinent portions of these follows HEREBY AND DECREED that clear and to FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED plaintiff sustained its burden of proving by convincing evidence that defendant Health Net Inc fraud that proximately caused damages to the Oklahoma HMO or its creditors IT IS HEREBY AND DECREED that FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff sustained its burden ADJUDGED of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Health Net Inc knowingly engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice that was the proximate cause of damage to the Oklahoma HMO or its creditors IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff sustained its burden or proving by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Health Net Inc acted with malice or gross negligence regarding the rights of the Oklahoma HMO or its creditors and IT IS HEREBY AND DECREED that FURTHER given ORDERED this Court s finding ADJUDGED that defendant Health Net Inc knowingly engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice that was the proximate cause of damage to the Oklahoma HMO or its creditors plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees the evidence supporting the award of attorneys fees and the determination of the amount of the attorneys fees award shall be made following November 2005 at a bifurcated trial 9 30 to be held on the 21 st day of a m IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence engaged in fraud malice and that defendant Health Net Inc negligence and this Court finds that defendant Health Net Inc s conduct was sufficiently egregious to walTant an award of punitive damages the evidence supporting the exact amount of the punitive damages award shall be made following a bifurcated trial to be held on the 21st day of November 2005 at 9 30 gross a m IT IS HEREBY AND DECREED that Health Net FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED that defendant given this Court s finding Inc knowingly engaged in an unfair or deceptive 6 act or practice that HNO or the was its creditors proximate plaintiff compensatory damages damages These for determined its following damage to an election the Oklahoma to award of either treble an award of punitive regarding the the bifurcated trial Emphasis added same reason as is entitled at or of cause judgments conclude with the proclamation that delay this judgment shall constitute final a there being no just appealable judgment and is hereby accorded such designation A review of these rulings that tracked judgments the shows that the trial operative language of court made specific the Texas statutes that factual provided liability for punitive damages and attorneys fees On November 21 first issue considered 2005 the trial attempted to sic court thought this responded going was issues but its to engage a Later to You be thirty days to a re not simple be of concerning the counsel objected and the more to going proffer this testimony to be bifurcated able to hearing do that trial than that And this is a on which today two I narrow very short week reporter and do your proffer during the questioning of another witness by Health Net s with the might be subject for determine hour every to in accordance with the Code after this trial in which following legal debate about all these court to an court inteljected a No obviously going and you will have and witness presentation attorneys fees and punitive The HMOs damages a the The sustained the objection the trial into During question Health Net s counsel then noted his intent court fees otherwise for the award of these items of these damages court or convened the bifurcated trial the issue of attorneys was evidence counsel for Health Net basis statutory court on a T hat s extraneous exactly what I did issues These law review article but this is merely the reasonableness of attorney fees that Monday you know and I don 7 t want to are get we counsel the not want to very an get interesting issue for the do this in about too far into this Emphasis added Counsel then continued questioning the witness as the to hourly rates of attorneys involved in this and other litigation this trial the HMOs During presented evidence of the following 1 the curriculum vitae of the attorneys annual financial and 6 law firm a of all 3 pleadings quarterly and 4 law firm time sheets 5 law firm attorney fees This evidence generally tracks the language of of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct which provides follows a A lawyer shall not make an agreement for charge or collect unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of include the following The an 1 the time and labor questions involved and the properly a fee required the novelty and difficulty of the skill requisite to perform the legal service 2 the likelihood if apparent to the client that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer 3 the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal servIces 4 the amount involved and the results obtained 5 the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances 6 the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client 7 the experience reputation and ability of the lawyer lawyers performing the services and 8 whether the fee is fixed No evidence relevant to rate billing invoices and 7 expert testimony concerning the reasonableness of attorneys Rule 1 5 listing a that Health Net filed with the United States Securities statements Exchange Commission schedules 2 liability was or contingent presented 8 or as At the end of the proceedings between day on November 21 the examination and 2005 cross the trial court recessed the a witness for the 2005 Health Net s examination of HMOs When the resumed proceedings counsel informed the court it did HMOs counsel stated the live not on intend to court HMOs T matter before you The HMOs as quickly counsel evidence and then court as judge and matter additional fifteen we bifurcated trial simply submit it thirty days of today upon s At that the to point the November 22 2005 evidence commenced on was laid over states Damages consent was of the Court an and then the designate some we to get this deadlines any witnesses thirty days or to do this all this is we can do it a by writing with post trial memorandum within agreed in principle contingent telephone a opportunity to conference for confer with its client transcript ends pertinent dates establish that on the Bifurcated Trial of this until Without regarding introduction of 22 2005 at 9 30 a m On November 22 2005 the minute case as to Attorney Whereupon by Stipulation telephone conference 9 November 21 matter completing Tuesday November The Trial of the bifurcated resumed had which would be counsel s for the introduction of additional evidence entry to by agreement along Attorney Fees and Punitive Damages matter was concluded was scheduling and by depositions Monday allowing each party evidence this with Net The court then scheduled The minute entries for the 2005 days do it court us days even Health Net date approval by Health the following we can of the evidence I would ask that you set fifteen complete all depositions and perhaps examine the witness and the and counsels help o possible suggested an cross testimony portion Additional conversation between the counsel asked of the November 22 was Fees and Punitive of counsel and with the fixed for Monday November 28 2005 9 15 at reassignment a m for at which time deadlines will be fixed for submission Court hearing in Open On December 6 2005 the trial the Louisiana HMO s by either by way of Deposition or court signed a second judgment claim for attorneys fees which provided as to pertaining follows IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff J Robert State of Louisiana Louisiana has failed as Wooley Commissioner of Insurance for the Liquidator for Amcare Health Plans of to meet attorneys fees pursuant his burden to establish the Texas Code Article to with Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct awarding of 21 21 in conjunction Rule 1 5 Emphasis added On December 12 2005 the trial same for the Oklahoma HMO s court signed the Louisiana and Oklahoma HMOs provided as provided the claim for attorneys fees On December 20 2005 the trial court to second judgment that a signed a second claims for judgment pertaining punitive damages which follows WHEN after the evidence and argument of counsel the that upon the facts and law plaintiffs have hearing Court being of the opinion shown no right to relief grants iudgment in accordance with CCP Art 1672 B THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs involuntarily dismissing the claim for punitive damages with prejudice Emphasis added These three judgments may sometimes be referred to collectively as the December judgments The Louisiana and Oklahoma HMOs took these appeals CAUSE OF ACTIONS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES The Louisiana and Oklahoma HMOs damages separate and attorneys fees cause as authorized are by Texas law of action that arises out of the facts asserted in the main and incidental demands 10 asserting claims for punitive Cf Each of these claims is a pertinent to the causes of action Cantrell Fence Supply Co v Allstate Ins Co 515 Co 2002 0689 denied 2d So 46 47 pp 2003 1818 La 1078 79 1074 La 17 10 La 3 Cir App 03 2 5 03 855 2d So Jefferson Downs Race Track 615 So 2d 403 Lerma Champion v Ins Co separately from the primary for 4 La 16 9 La C C P Ass Physicians Lady 94 642 5 Cir App Our n v 2d So 10 2 179 99 41 001 et seq of Judgment and Appeal T S The a La La 520 App 4 Cir 1993 App of action Stewards of v 1 Cir 1992 each may be tried arts 1562 1631 1632 and 1915 Regional Med Cent Automotive Cas Ins Co v Emergency 94 1268 p 1 98 0807 pp 3 on Exemplary for Punitive Damages exemplary punitive damages is found in S Damages of Subtitle C Judgments of Title 2 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code of the V A operative language for the recovery of exemplary damages is found in S and b which only hann with respect results from to which the 1 fraud 41 009 this law in provides pertinent part that exemplary damages if the claimant proves be awarded S Dugas 41 Trial 41 003 cause of the Lake providing Chapter 404 05 writ 729 So 2d 25 27 28 Texas Law The Texas law separate Walker 46 47 of action and each may have bifurcated trials causes and quantum liability La a All State Ins v 844 So 2d 41 763 597 So 2d 518 Because each of these claims is Robin 1987 2 malice by clear and convincing evidence that the claimant seeks recovery of or 3 may gross negligence exemplary damages Emphasis added In provides that the issues of liability and quantum shall be decided in bifurcated trials Pursuant awarded in a to Louisiana Civil Code article 3546 Louisiana 21 21 Unfair may be court Texas Law The Texas law punitive damages providing on for Awarding Attorneys an Fees award of attorneys Competition and Unfair Practices of the V 11 fees is found in article A T S Insurance Code The operative language for the 21 21 entitled Unfair Methods of Practices Prohibited any trade to be which states that competition the business of insurance in 9 4 of article 21 21 unfair deceptive or act or to this Act in practice An illustrative list of definitions of and unfair making making misrepresentation any filing or deceptive or acts as to or the false financial statements proscribed therein Article Paragraph 21 21 9 16 is entitled thereof provides a Any another who has sustained actual person engaging s or Relief Available in an act or in a Commerce Code competition maintain action or an practices subdivision as against of an enumerated in Section 17 46 b person must the person s unfair deceptive acts practice specifically or or deceptive Business trade or Business show that the person has relied detriment Emphasis added Commerce Code the on act or Paragraph b of 9 16 provides in pertinent part that Section any plaintiff who prevails court costs and fact may award not may obtain 1 the knowingly more committed the than three times the acts practice In a fees a to suit under this of actual amount reasonable and necessary attorneys finds that the defendant 4 of this practice may persons engaging in such acts action for a deceptive act or practice the person To maintain or in any Section 17 46 b unlawful an damages caused by practice declared in Section practices in the business of insurance enumerated Injured Parties to follows as Article to be unfair methods of plus Deceptive Acts of determined pursuant or competition financial condition of any insurer and are Act or an Unfair and or person shall engage in this state in n o added Emphasis what constitutes unfair methods of practices is found attorney fee is found in 9 3 of article an Competition practice which is defined in this unfair method of an recovery of damages If the trier of fact complained of the trier of amount of actual damages Emphasis added MODIFICATION OF A FINAL JUDGMENT A judgment that determines judgment La C C P art the merits of a 1841 A final judgment 12 case in whole or in part is may be rendered and a final signed by a court though it even adjudicate liability all of the issues in the may be bifurcated and tried finaljudgment amendments to are by La Changes to court at any substance cosmetic and 0272 La 3 28 02 App 812 of calculation As trial a its 2000 2154 judgments Thus the issues of if there is awarded on liability each issue will be a Final a Judgment Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1951 not Parts errors amount 1915 may not or La C C P art 19l5A 5 may be amended but art separately and the judgment Cosmetic Pursuant La C C P case of action and quantum on a cause judgment grant all of the relief prayed for may not 2 1 Cir 12 28 did 635 not to 1 correct 01 alter the alter the cosmetic will be hereinafter shown phraseology Blue v 804 So 2d 953 The December judgment of the of calculation enol S Hebert substantive not 2d So They or time final a s Such Truck Auto writ denied judgments did 2002 not correct phraseology of the November they substantively reversed the November judgments The Punitive The November specific language ofV A T Damages Judgments punitive damages judgments track S Civil Practice and Remedies Code S 41 003 the operative and b a by stating that the plaintiffs have sustained their burden of proving by clear and that convincing evidence negligence that caused punitive damages court for s This the defendant damage to language them also committed this factually substantially punitive damages 3 One of the November As Yes previously indicated in the Texas HMO trial the daIllages jury answered These November judgments 13 s conduct liability Net was was provide for SaIlle procedure liable states that sufficiently and thereafter a bifurcated trial for the gross language of the trial jury if Health Inc to frx the aIllount of punitive and judgments specifically this Court finds that defendant Health Net 3 establishes tracks the 9 which asked the Texas HMO Interrogatory malice fraud was held to warrant egregious the award of an award shall be made punitive damages Emphasis added This language is clear and These November for punitive following the of exact amount bifurcated a triaL unambiguous judgments substantively decree the liability of Health Net damages In addition the December 20 2005 accordance with CCP Art l672 B 1 672 B and that punitive damages is entitled In judgment states that it was in granted Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article Involuntary dismissal and provides as follows by the court without a jury after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence any party without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the facts and law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief The court may then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving party or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence Emphasis an action tried added Article l672 B party may shown no move right the court is 4 5 La not for to a provides an involuntary relief party The to App 4 Cir 4 22 98 La App 3 Cir 4 30 97 Article 1672 B dismissal motion without court 4 on nor a no motion for 2005 involuntary dismissal such a motion to dismiss their own plaintiff rests any ground that the plaintiff has Succession of Ratcliffv 65 appeal does 922 Koch Williams not v v Fruge 99 0575 Koch error pp 97 1600 p 4 Brooks a hearing by granting such a was 3 96 1709 p La 19 9 97 reflect that any l2ill1Y moved for does it reflect that hearing In its brief to this Court Health Net asserts made the a any party does not include the court because 755 So 2d 918 committed conducting The December 20 on that after 693 So 2d 302 304 writ denied 97 1434 The record The trial dismissal 714 So 2d 63 701 So 2d 175 motion pertinent pmi phrase the action App 3 Cir 12 8 99 La in held dismissal on on an such its a own 4 judgment specifically states that plaintiffs have Health Net has not had any opportunity to put on its case and has It is doubtful that the Louisiana and Oklahoma HMOs would make claims 14 shown right to relief no November 4 2005 for punitive T S s of cause fees attorneys court damage This clear and In Judgments fees judgments track the operative unfair also by stating that the plaintiffs preponderance of the evidence that the or deceptive this them to language to act Further supervision of La App an tracks the specifically practice that presenting services the court App 1 Cir 1991 1 Cir 1991 to have a language fees bifurcated trial evidence of the value of the evident from the record are Hebert Francis v writs denied Inc v v State Farm Ins Travelers Ins Co 588 So 2d 1114 This the of the trial was liable language is the trial court and quantum entered reasonable attorneys rendered there was pre trial order that attorneys legal services rendered or were Co 588 So 2d 1150 581 1121 rendered under 2d So La 1036 1991 However as 1044 See and Rule previously apparently bifurcated the portions of the attorneys fees issue During the November Oklahoma HMOs a on an Rogers 421 So 2d 216 La 1982 1 5 of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct indicated was in pertinent part that states award of reasonable attorneys generally Leenerts Farms liability or factually establishes liability for substantially bench trial it is unnecessary a not necessary if the La substantive reversal of the unambiguous fees issue 1153 an a One of the judgments plaintiff is entitled the a Intenogatory 7 which asked the Texas HMO jury if Health Net for attorneys fees is proving by knowingly engaged in proximate Fees Insurance Code Art 21 21 sustained their burden of defendant Attorneys specific November attorneys of V A language This is judgments The The damages presented fees 21 22 2005 bifurcated trial extensive evidence the Louisiana and concerning what would be When the December 6 and 12 2005 judgments substantial evidence in the record upon which the trial 15 were judge could make trial quantum award a Thus it may judge ruled that the Louisiana and Oklahoma burden to establish the liability judgment and November 4 2005 HMOs of attorney awarding that when the reasonably be infened failed fees she was to meet his to refening sic the judgments The not Proper Procedure Once the November substantively or 2 an 2785 p 2d So in the trial action for 5 742 745 La The record 2 a the parties In an appeal does not a new action or motion Bourgeois 2002 2785 our signed court v v 1971 et seq Kost 2002 Pourciau Without is limited judgments provided or at so or action of 577 nullity transcript showing 1975 1978 hearing for a new In brief trial 696 appears the following iurisprudence been an 1971 arts 846 So 2d motion for minute entry motion except in the same iudge cannot on his own change a iudgment which has trial a La C C P at p 5 trial enor art Bourgeois Bonaventure be altered amended cannot who rendered the in they could be affected 1 pleadings 3 or was no It is well settled under signed et seq 696 contain trial acknowledge that there has been 2001 Judgment trial La C C P a new art Final 1 Cir 1991 motion and order for the trial of such only by 1 a rendered were 846 So 2d 692 App on substantive reversal of the a Substantively Change La C C P 5 26 03 La to judgments court nullity This is quantum ruling a that iudgment which revised by the iudge provided by law The a or manner the motion of any party signed notwithstanding it was or on specific statutory grant of authority the the general authorization for amending final to a in Code of Civil Procedure Article 1951 As stated above Article 1951 limits the amendment of judgments to the correction of does final not errors authorize judgments in calculation and alteration of a trial court to Courts have phraseology but make substantive amendments to uniformly held substantive amendments iudgments made without recourse to the proper procedures i e by way of a timely motion for a new trial or by appeal to be absolute nullities Emphasis added citations omitted to Because the November or revised by a new trial judgments substantively judgments or reverse an have action of not been properly altered amended nullity and because the December the pertinent November judgments the December 16 judgments are absolute nullities REMEDY FOR ABSOLUTE NULLITY In Bourgeois 2002 2785 Court vacated the We do the absolutely at p null 8 846 So 2d judgment at 696 the Louisiana and reinstated the Supreme original judgment same REMAND In brief Health Net asserts because the bifurcated trials for punitive and attorneys fees its and case remanded for not were completed it if the December was judgments time are The issues of Health Net presently before this rulings court s in its Should Health Net will be remands for trials to we given an reversed on to opportunity then the case present must be those issues decline to grant this request at this liability for punitive damages and attorneys fees Health Net may appeals If Health Net is successful these issues are completion of the bifurcated trial In the interest of judicial economy not damages not there will be prevail determine the on one no or assign necessity for in these elTor a remand on both of these issues there appropriate quantum DECREE F or the foregoing reasons the rule to show lodged with this Court bearing numbers 2006 and 2006 CA 1152 1155 2005 judgments damages of the trial and attorneys pertaining are to Health Net court are pertaining is granted and the appeals CA 1146 1148 2006 CA 1149 1151 HEREBY DISMISSED fees s cause to the December 6 the issues of liability for punitive vacated and the November 4 liability for punitive damages 12 and 20 and 2005 judgments attorneys fees are reinstated RULES TO SHOW CAUSE GRANTED APPEALS DISMISSED JUDGMENTS VACATED ORIGINAL JUDGMENTS REINSTATED 17

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.