Louise Conley, Individually and On Behalf of Her Deceased Husband, James Conley, and Their Children, Glenn Conley, Sr., Rodney Conley, Jacqueline Conley Morris, Katherine Conley Thorn, and Garnet Conley Daggs VS Plantation Management Company, L.L.C. d/b/a Heritage Healthcare Center - Hammond and Michael J. Kozel, M.D.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL Yv FIRST CIRCLTIT NLJMBER 2012 C 1510 LOUISE CONLEY INDIVIDUALLY AND JN I HER DECEASED EHALF OF HUSBAND JAMES COI AND THEIR CHILDREN GLENN CONLEY EY II SR RODNEY CONLEY JACQUELINE CONLEY MORRIS KATHERINE CONLEY THORN AND GARiVET CONLEY DAGGS VERSUS PLANTATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY L DB HERITAGE CA HEALTHCARE CENTER HAMMOND AND MICHAEL J KOZEL M D Judgment Rendered MAY 0 6 2013 Appealed from the 21 S 7udicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa Louisiana Trial Court Nu 2004 ber r002624 Honorable Zorraine MI Wagsxespack Judge Charles A ey Attor for Appellant Baton Defendant Schutte Jr Rouge LA Plantation Management Company Id Heritage Ca Lb Healthcare Center Richard T Gallagher Jr LA Metairie Hammond Attorney far Appellees Plaintiffs Louise Conley Individually and on behalf of her deceased husband James Conley and their children Glenn Conley Sr Rodney Conley Jacqueline Conley Morris Katherine Conley Thorn and Garnet Conley Daggs BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND KLINE JJ J Cr J e C 1 Hon William F Kline 7r retired is serving as jud ad hoc by special appoinhnent of the ge Louisiana Supreme Court WELCH J Defendant Plantation Management Company L d Heritage C b a Healthcare Center Heritage appeals a judgment rendered in favor of Hammond plaintiffs Louise Conley et al Finding the appeal was not timely filed we dismiss the appeal FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 30 2004 Louise Conley individually and on behalf of her deceased husband James Conley and their five chiidren all of the age of majority filed this medical malpractice and wrongful death suit against Heritage a nursing home where Mr Conley was a resident and Dr Michael Kozel Mr Conley treating s physician at Heritage Plaintiffs alleged that Mr Conley died as a result of sepsis caused by his infected feet and that defendants breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose and adequately treat Mr Conley medical condition and by s failing to adequately monitor Mr Conley Dr Kozel filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court and on November 21 2008 the trial court signed a judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims against Dr Kozel and his insurer Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company with prejudice at plaintiffs costs On June 22 2011 the matter proceeded to trial and at its conclusion the trial court took the matter under advisement A document entitled Judgment was signed by the trial court on August 1 2011 and reads as follows in pertinent part LOUISE CONLEY 21 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ET AL VERSUS 2004 002624 PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA HERITAGE HEALTHCARE CENTER ET AL STATE OF LOUISIANA JUDGMENT This matter came to be heazd on the 22 day of June 2o11 Present in court were Richard Gallagher Jr attomey of record for the plaintiff Louise Conley 2 Charles Schutte Jr attomey of record for the defendants Plantation Management Company d a b Heritage Healthcare Center and Hammond Valerie Judice attorney of record far the defendants Plantation Management Company d a b Heritage Healthcaze Center Hammond After hearing the testimony presented at trial and reading the depositions of other witnesses submitted in lieu of live testimony considering the law and evidence submitted the Court finds that there was a breach in the standard of caze owed to Mr Conley the Court finds in favor of the plaintiffs and awards damages of 35 plus judicial interest from the date of demand Defendant is cast 00 000 for all costs with the exception of the costs associated with the Motion fox Involuntary Dismissal of the Wrongful Death Action The Court bases iYs ruling on the following The judgment then sets forth two pages of reasons for judgment which half a and includes the factual background of the case a summary of the trial and deposition testimony and a factual conclusion that the actions of Jean Zane a nurse manager employed by Heritage fell below the standard of care owed to Mr Conley On August 3 2011 the Clerk of Court mailed a notice to counsel of record that Judgment was Rendered on the 1 DAY OF AUGUST 2011 Read and ST Signed on the l DAY OF AUGUST 2011 A copy ofthe judgment was attached to the notice Heritage did not file an appeal from this judgment within the appeal delays for taking a suspensive appeal set forth in La C art 2123 or for taking P a devolutive appeal set forth in La C art 2087 Instead on January 20 2012 P Heritage filed ato Enter JudgmenY in the trial court in which it asserted Motion that a final judgment had never been entered in the case Heritage acknowledged that notice of the judgment had been mailed on August 3 2011 but claimed that the August 1 2011 ruling of the trial court did not qualify as a final judgment because it did not comport with La C art 1918 requirement that written P s reasons be set forth in a separate document from the judgment and because the court did not issue a separate ruling ardering the defendant to pay damages Plaintiffs opposed the motion insisting that the August 1 20ll document entitled JudgmenY was a valid fmal judgment parsuant to La C art 1918 At the P 3 conclusion of the hearing held on the motion on April 16 2012 the trial court ruled that the August 1 20ll ruling constituted a judgment Heritage then filed a notice of intent to apply for a supervisory writ and the trial court initially ordered Heritage to file its application with this Court on or before May 17 2012 Upon Heritage May 22 2012 motion seeking to clarify the s order relating to its writ or for an extension oftime the trial court ordered that the writ application be filed with this Court byMay 22 2012 The request for an extension of time in which to file the writ application was not filed within the time set in the district court soriginal return date order and on that basis this Court did not consider Heritage sapplication that was filed on May 21 2012 Conley v Plantation Management Company LLC 2012 La App 1 Cir 9 0879 12 10 unpublished This Court action stated the following in pertinent part s Further without a copy of the transcript or the minutes of the April 16 2012 hearing on relator Motion to Enter Judgment it is s impossible for this Court to determine whether the court ordered ar a party requested that the ruling be reduced to writing See La C P art 1914 Accordingly thic Court is unable to determine if the application was timely filed In the event relator seeks to file a new application with this Court it must contain all pertinent documentation including documentation showing that the original application was timely filed and must comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 12 2 Any new application must be filed on or before September 26 2012 and must contain a copy of this ruling Heritage did not file another writ application On May 24 2012 the trial court signed a judgment denying Heritage s motion to enter judgment on the basis that a judgment had previously been entered in this matter On June 14 2012 Heritage filed a petition for a suspensive appeal in the trial court seeking to appeal the judgment signed on August l 2011 awarding damages in favar of plaintiffs and the judgment signed on May 24 2012 denying the motion to enter a judgment The trial court order of appeal s granted an appeal from the judgment signed on May 24 2012 but not from the 4 August 1 2011 judgment finding the petition for an appeal of that judgment to be untimely In this appeal Heritage assigned as error the trial court failure to enter a s final judgment and the trial court denial of its motion for the entry of a final s judgment Heritage argued that no final judgment on the merits had been entered in this case from which an appeal could be taken to this court and asked this court to remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a final judgment Heritage did not brief the merits of the trial court ruling asserting that this court s lacked subject matter jurisdiction at this time to review the trial court ruling on s the merits Heritage asserted alternatively that if this court concluded that jurisdiction to review the merits of the case existed it would supplement the record to include the trial transcript and this court should permit Heritage to then file a brief to assign errors made by the trial court in its ruling on the merits of the case After the lodging of the record this Court issued a rule to show cause order which stated that Heritage spetition for suspensive appeal appeared to be untimely based on the following facts 1 the trial court signed a judgment on August 1 2011 2 the notice of this judgment was issued on August 3 2011 and 3 Heritage filed a petition for suspensive appeal on June 14 2012 On January 28 2013 another panel ofthis court referred the rule to show cause as to whether this appeal should be dismissed as untimely to the panel to which the appeal was assigned Conley v Plantation Management Company LLC 2012 La App l Cir 1510 unpublished 13 28 1 2 Heritage posted an appeal bond in the sum of 52 00 274 3 While the record has been supplemented to include the trial transcript Heritage has not filed a supplemental brief assigning error to the trial court finding of a breach of care on its part or the s award of damages to the plaintiffs 5 DISCUSSION It is undisputed that the August 1 2011 judgment signed by the trial court was not appealed within the delay periods set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal ofthat judgment depends on whether the August 1 20ll judgment is a final appealable judgment Heritage contends that the trial court August 1 2011 action is merely a that does s ruling not fulfill the requirements for a final judgment It contends that the judgment lacks decretal language because it does not order the defendants to pay any amount of damages to the plaintiffs and it does not contain language indicating that the court by signing the ruling was signing a final judgment Heritage insists that the language ofthe August 1 2011 ruling was not sufficient to place it on notice that it was a final judgment Additionally Heritage contends that the August 1 2011 ruling is not a final judgment because it failed to comply with La C art P s 1918 mandate that when written reasons far the judgment are assigned they shall be set out in an opinion separate from the judgment Heritage contends that since a final judgment was not entered in the case the appeal delays did not commence upon the signing of the August 1 2011 ruling and the issuance of the notice of judgment Rather it submits the earliest date that the appeal delays could have begun to run was May 24 2012 when the court entered judgment denying the motion to enter judgment and declaring the August 1 2011 ruling to be a final judgment Therefore it claims its petition for suspensive appeal filed on June 14 2012 was timely In response plaintiffs contend that Heritage appeal is untimely and is s barred by the doctrine of res judicata They maintain that the August 1 2011 judgment is a final judgment because 1 it was identified by appropriate language as a by its captioned designation 2 it included appropriate JUDGMENT decretal language due to its find in favor of plaintiff and it awarded ing 6 damages and interest to plaintiff 3 the dollar arnaunt awarded was specific in that the judgment awarded 35 plus judicial interest from the date of the 00 100 demand and 4 it was signed and dated Decretal LanguaQe Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1918 states that A final judgment shall be identified as such by appropriate language It is well settled that a final judgment must be precise definite and certain Vanderbrook v Coachmen Industries Inc 2001 La App 1 Cir 5 818 So 906 913 A 0809 St 02 1Q 2d final judgment must contain decretal language Carter v Williamson Eye Center 2001 La App l Cir 11 837 So 43 44 Generally it 2016 02 27 2d must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered the party against whom the ruling is ordered and the relief that is granted or denied Id The specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings or reasons for judgment Vanderbrook 0809 2001 at pp 11 818 So at 913 The failure to name the defendant ar 12 2d defendants against whom the judgment is rendered in a case with multiple defendants makes the judgment fatally defective because one cannot discern from its face against whom it may be enforced Jenkins v Recovery Technology Investors 2002 La App l Cir 6 858 So 598 600 However 1788 03 27 2d this court has found a judgment to be valid where although it did not refer to the plaintiff by name there was only one plaintiff involved in the case and the sname was discemible from the caption of the judgment Hammonds v plaintiff Reliance Ins Co 2006 La App l Cir 12 2006 WL 3813719 0540 st 06 28 Because only judgments are made executory in Louisiana courts La C art P 2781 et seq to be legally enforceable as a valid judgment a third person should be able to determine from the judgment the party cast and the amount owed 7 without reference to other documents in the record See Vanderbrook 818 So 2d at 913 14 We find that the August 1 2011 judgment contains sufficient decretal language to constitute a final jud in that it detenmines the rights ofthe parties rnent and awards plaintiffs a precise dollar amoiznz i 35 plus judicial interest e 000 00 from the date of demand The plainti axe all identified in the written reasons s Although the decretal language does not expressly name Heritage as the defendant cast in judgment Heritage was the only remaining defendant in the litigation and Heritage was identified as the defendant in the caption of the judgment and in the listing of counsel of record present in court at the beginning of the judgment Thus a third person could determine from reading the judgment that Heritage is the party cast in judgment and the amount owed by Heritage without reference to other documents in the record Form Requirement The three document signed on August l 2011 contains the trial page s court written reasons for judgment While it is true that La C art 1918 P states that w written reasons tor the judgment are assigned they shall be set hen out in an opinion separate from the judgment it is we11 settled that this portion of the article is merely precatory and does not render a jud identified as such nent and complete in every respect in simply because it includes written reasons in valid the body of the document Hinchman v International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No 130 292 So 717 720 La 1974 2d holding that a document entitled judgment which also contained decretal language was not invalid merely because the trial judge included written t easons in the body of the document noting that the document was labeled a judgment included a decree and determined the rights ofthe parties and awarded the relief to which they were entitled ASP Enterprises Inc v Guillory 2008 La 2235 8 App 1 Cir 9111 22 So 964 968 n w denied 2009 La 1 09 3d l it 2464 10 29 25 So3d 834 Hammonds Z006 at p 1 this court determined that 0540 wherein the judgment which contained reasons far judgment also contained the necessary essentials to determine the rights of the parties and the relief awarded and thus it was not necessary to retnand for entry of a new judgment Country Club of Louisiana Property Owners Ass Inc v Dornier 96 La App l Cir n 0898 97 14 2 691 So 142 149 wherein although the judgment included enumerated 2d findings of fact this court found no need to remand for entry of a newjudgment The August 1 2011 judgment is entitled JUDGMENT and a notice ofthat judgment was mailed to counsel of record We have already concluded that the August 1 2011 judgment contains sufficient decretal language therefore we conclude that the inclusion of reasons in the judgment did not render it fatally defective Accardingly we hold that the August 1 2011 judgment which was captioned as such mailed to the parties and identified as the judgment of the court and which identifies the parties finds in favor of the plaintiffs awards damages in the amount of 35 casts the defendants for costs and is signed and dated 00 000 by the trial court is a final appealable judgment Consequently the appeal delays began to run when Heritage xeceived notice of the judgment on August 3 2011 The judgment became final and definitive when the appeal delays lapsed on October 11 20ll and this court has no jurisdiction to modify revise or reverse that judgment See Batson v South Louisiana Medical Center 2006 La 1998 App l Cir 6 965 So 890 896 writ denied 2007 La 10 07 13 2d 1479 07 5 964 So 945 Therefore this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review the 2d August 1 2011 judgment and we dismiss the appeal from that judgment 4 This determination rendexs the appeal of the trial court May 24 2012 judgment moot That s appeal is also dismissed 9 USION CONCL Based on the foregoing the appeal is dismissed All costs of this appeal are assessed to appellants Plantation Management Company L dlb Heritage C a Healthcare Center Hammond APPEAL DISMISSED 10
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.
