Anthony Gobert VS SWDI, L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 1598 ANTHONY GOBERT VERSUS S W D I LLC Judgment Rendered MAY 5 2009 ON APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DISTRICT 9 IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF TERREBONNE DOCKET NUMBER 06 02308 THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH C LANIER JUDGE J Arthur Smith III Attorneys Nicole D Streva Appellant Anthony Gobert Baton for Plaintiff Rouge Louisiana Matthew W Tierney Kristine D Smiley Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE Attorneys for Defendant Appellee S W D I L L C PETTIGREW McDONALD HUGHES JJ McDONALD J In this workers was participating in Louisiana while he with a a riding on his the back of to undergo was After his release from while incarcerated garbage truck returned was numerous federal offense and a in to Anthony Gobert prison he filed On June 14 2000 hereafter S W D I truck collided garbage injury a severe to his lower he suffered serious surgeries state custody Mr Gobert was On custody claim for disputed a benefits were incarceration asserting that an answer convicted of 12 April S W D 1 asserted that incarceration Mr Gobert was year since Mr Gobert had ability to allowed seen Thereafter Mr the accident incarceration he was he was not prison S W DJ filed a prior incarcerated when during the period to his last work that it had been period more of of than a to his entitled to any was not presently motion for stay order a to to incarceration workers indemnity benefits asserting and compensation interrupt prescription and to future medical expenses and from not due expenses treating physician with respect returned entitled to to benefits Gobert filed thus he had filed his claim to the to work and further that Mr Gobert weekly workers compensation after were was a 2006 compensation seeking Mr Gobert terminated and that benefits Further perform complications interrupt prescription of his claims for indemnity and medical S W DJ filed of the auspices because he could not prison taken into federal was The Mr Gobert sustained While he his work duties and had and Corrections for S W D I L L C job working Mr Gobert the claimant work release program under the parked vehicle and right leg case Department of Public Safety performing was compensation during the benefits preserve his when he that was and rights released peremptory exception raising the objection of 2 no of action cause Gobert workers s asserting that pursuant compensation benefits incarceration and that the cause were S WD l raising hearing the workers a denying the motion the objection compensation judge the to no cause Mr Gobert prejudice granting of R S forfeited 23 120 lA Mr during his period of disputed claim for compensation failed of action upon which relief could be After to La to state a granted compensation judge ruled in favor of stay granting the peremptory exception of action and all claims with dismissing appealed the judgment asserting that the workers erred in denying the motion for a stay order and erred in peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action Louisiana Revised Statute 23 120104 provided prior to amendment by Acts of 1999 No 320 The employee medical right s is expenses incarceration unless workers compensation judge employee benefits shall In Clark 17 the court prescription v dependents Mrs Fields Cookies on a 1997 0397 found that incarceration does for filing workers a The under La R S 23 1201 4 an claim for benefits while be rely resume worker remains confined a who finds that compensation award for their support in which case said compensation shall be made payable and transmitted to the legal guardian of the minor dependent or other person designated by the workers compensation judge and such payments shall be considered as having been made to the employee After release from incarceration the employee s right to claim compensation an has a compensation benefits including forfeited during any period of to suspended during that not La 121 98 suspend the running of compensation claim while court 707 So 2d the injured specifically rejected the argument that injured worker should be prevented from filing imprisoned and that the prescriptive period would time 3 Thereafter the Louisiana legislature amended La R S 23 1201 4 to add An who is incarcerated but is later found employee to be not guilty of felony criminal charges or against whom all felony charges have been dismissed by the prosecutor shall have the prescriptive period for filing a claim for benefits under this chapter extended by the number of days he was incarcerated The historical and statutory notes to La intention behind Acts 1999 No 320 of this Act intended are incarceration does not compensation claim as Clark v Mrs Field filing a finding workers prescription are Thus in the time legislature provisions finding that filing Supreme claim compensation not workers a Court decision legislatively suspend prescription for the amendment not only suspends guilty and those in which all felony In those the defendant cases suspended by the number of days he those inmates who of their our case right to their file a are not later felony charges was found a 4 to file a incarcerated to be not guilty or a compensation benefits Thus while he cannot while he is incarcerated his claim while he is incarcerated in order collect benefits when he is released right suspension of prescription for he is incarcerated compensation benefits s dismissed do not have claim for workers Mr Gobert does not have period during which to file the may have intended to that incarceration does not later have all collect workers able for prescription The the Cookies 707 So 2d 17 La 1998 later dismissed However suspension overrule explain in a small number of cases that is those in which the defendant claim would be who do 23 120104 follows as stated in the Louisiana is incarcerated and later found charges legislatively to suspend while the However overrule the s Section 2 R S he to preserve his must be right to The Louisiana sustainment cause 16 10 or Supreme Court explained the standard of review of the denial of a peremptory exception raising the objection of no of action in Kinchen 967 So 2d 1137 07 1129 01 801 So 2d 346 to 1138 of exception La citing Fink Bryant 2001 0987 v La follows as peremptory exception of question whether under the factual 0478 Livingston Parish Council 2007 348 49 The function of the is v the law extends of the allegations no cause of action is no cause remedy a of action to anyone The peremptory petition designed to test the legal whether the sufficiency of the petition by determining plaintiff is afforded a remedy in law based on the facts alleged in the pleading No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action The exception is triable on the face of the papers and for the purposes of determining the issues raised by the exception the well pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true In reviewing a trial court s ruling sustaining an exception of no cause to de law of action the the trial court should court review because the novo and appellate exception raises decision s subject is based sufficiency of the petition Simply stated be dismissed for failure to state a case question of only the on petition should a cause a the not of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of any claim which would entitle him to relief The workers compensation cause was of action Gobert could reverse the the trial forfeited while he However not he did have the compensation judge our collect workers right to court file his was found that Mr Gobert incarcerated review of the case proceedings assessed against S right therefore he had to no shows that while Mr compensation benefits while incarcerated cause of action while incarcerated thus we judgment granting the peremptory exception raising objection of no cause of action and remand the further s Mr Gobert s motion to W D 1 REVERSED AND REMANDED 5 case to the trial stay is denied court Costs for are
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.
