SWLA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION D/B/A LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VERSUS SUPERIOR CARRIERS, INC.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 06-807 SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION D/B/A LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VERSUS SUPERIOR CARRIERS, INC. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2006-1020 HONORABLE WILFORD D. CARTER, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** OSWALD A. DECUIR JUDGE ********** Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Jimmie C. Peters, and Glenn B. Gremillion, Judges. REVERSED. John Stanton Bradford Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, L.L.P. P. O. Box 2900 Lake Charles, LA 70602 (337) 436-9491 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association Perry R. Staub, Jr. Mark Van Horn Larry E. Demmons Taggart, Morton, Ogden, Staub, Rougelot & O Brien, L.L.C 2100 Energy Centre 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163-2100 (504) 599-8500 Counsel for Intervenor/Appellee: CCN, Inc. Thomas A. Filo Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson 723 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 436-6611 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association H. Clay Ward, III Attorney at Law 1111 Ryan Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 433-9320 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Superior Carriers, Inc. DECUIR, Judge. This is a claim filed in district court by a provider to recover payment for medical services rendered to a workers compensation claimant. The defendant appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of the provider finding that PPO network discounts are invalid under workers compensation law. FACTS On December 8, 2003, Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association, d/b/a Lake Charles Memorial Hospital (LCMH), rendered medical services to Steven G. Hollie, an employee of defendant, Superior Carriers, Inc. LCMH billed $4,605.00 for these services. Instead of reimbursing LCMH the workers compensation schedule rate of $4,144.50, Superior s workers compensation carrier, Great West Casualty Company, paid the PPO network discount amount of $3,914.29. LCMH filed this petition for declaratory relief asking the court to declare this discount invalid and unenforceable for failing to comply with the Louisiana Preferred Provider Organization Act (La.R.S. 40:2203.1) and for discounting this workers compensation bill below the lesser of LCMH s actual charge or the fee schedule amount in violation of La.R.S. 23:1033. The trial court granted the relief sought in both instances. Superior lodged this appeal. CCN, Inc., the administrator of the PPO network, filed a motion to intervene, which this court referred to the merits. DISCUSSION Superior first argues that this case should be reversed based on the en banc opinion of this court in Beutler-England Chiropractic Clinic v. Mermentau Rice, Inc. 05-942 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/06), 931 So2d 553. We agree. In Beutler-England, the court held that La.R.S. 23:1310.3(E), as amended, applies retroactively and grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over contractual and coverage disputes like the ones in the case at bar to workers compensation judges. LCMH argues that, even if that is the case, the district court had jurisdiction over the claim for violation of La.R.S. 40:2203.1 and that part of the judgment should stand. We are unpersuaded by this argument. Aside from the court s interest in avoiding piecemeal litigation, the resolution of that dispute affects the payment of benefits under the workers compensation act and, therefore, the Office of Workers Compensation had exclusive jurisdiction. Accordingly, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case. We need not discuss the remaining issues raised by the parties because this finding is dispositive. Likewise, the motion to intervene filed by CCN, Inc. is denied. DECREE For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. All costs of this appeal are taxed to appellant, Superior Carriers, Inc. REVERSED. 2
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.
