LECHIA BAKER VERSUS SUMMIT NURSING HOME

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 09-1007 LECHIA BAKER VERSUS SUMMIT NURSING HOME ********** APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT, DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 0820580 HONORABLE JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS COMPENSATION JUDGE ********** MARC T. AMY JUDGE ********** Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, James T. Genovese, Judges. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED. Lechia Baker Post Office Box 141 Lecompte, Louisiana 71346 PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: IN PROPER PERSON Michael D. Bass Guglielmo, Lopez, Tuttle, Hunter, & Jarrell, L.L.P. Post office Drawer 1329 Opelousas, Louisiana 70571-1329 (337) 948-8201 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Summit Nursing Home AMY, Judge. The Defendant-Appellee, Summit Nursing Home, moves to dismiss this appeal as having been abandoned. For the reasons given herein, we deny the motion to dismiss. By judgment signed June 22, 2009, the trial court dismissed the workers compensation action which Appellant, Lechia Baker, had filed against Appellee. Appellant s claim was dismissed subject to reinstatement within thirty days for good cause shown. Appellant did not seek to have her claim reinstated. Instead, Appellant filed an appeal which was lodged with this court on August 20, 2009. At this time, Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Appellant failed to timely file her appellate brief with this court. Appellant s brief was not filed within twenty-five days as required by Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2 12.7. However, pursuant to Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2 8.6, on September 18, 2009, this court mailed Appellant notice that she has an additional thirty days within which to file her brief. Pursuant to this notice, Appellant s brief is now due on October 19, 2009. As such, we find that Appellee s motion to dismiss, filed on September 18, 2009, is premature. Therefore, we hereby deny Appellee s motion to dismiss. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED. 1

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.