# Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #021

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 8th day of May, 2019 , are as follows:

BY WEIMER, J. :

2018

- CC

- 1768 THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, EX REL. JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL,
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC; MOLINA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, L.L.C. D/B/A MOLINA MEDICAID SOLUTIONS; PARAMAX SYSTEMS CORPORATION; AND UNISYS CORPORATION (Parish of E. Baton Rouge)

The writ application was granted in this matter to review the correctness of the appellate court’s ruling, sustaining an exception of no right of ac tion for the Attorney General’s lawsuit against the defendants, which are corporate entities allegedly serving as the state’s fiscal intermediary for the Medicaid program. By statute, the Louisiana Department of Health has the capacity to sue and be sued for programs that it administers, such as Medicaid. However, because the Louisiana Department of Health has delegated

– and the defendants allegedly contractually accepted

– some of the administrative functions of the state’s Medicaid program, we find that th e Attorney General has the capacity, and hence a right of action, to prosecute this lawsuit. VACATED; REMANDED.

JOHNSON, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

GUIDRY, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by

Chief Justice Johnson.

GENOVESE, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by

Chief Justice Johnson.

### 0 5/0 8 /1 9

SUPREM E CO URT O F LO UISIANA

No . 2 0 1 8 -CC-1 7 6 8

THE STATE OF LOUI SI ANA, EX REL. J A MES D. “ BUDDY”

CALDW ELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL

VERSUS
MOLI NA HEALTHCARE, I NC.;
MOLI NA I NFORMATI ON SYSTEMS, L.L.C. D/ B/ A
MOLI NA MEDI CAI D SOLUTI ONS; PARAMAX SYSTEMS
C ORPORATI ON; AND UNI SYS CORPORATI ON

ON W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

W EI MER , J u st i ce.

Th e wri t ap pl i cat i on was g ran t ed i n t h i s m at t er t o rev i ew t h e co rrect n es s o f t h e

ap p el l at e co u rt ’ s ru l i ng , s u s tai n i n g an ex cep ti o n o f n o ri g h t o f act i o n fo r t h e At t o rn ey

Gen eral ’ s l aws u i t ag ai n s t th e d efen dan t s , wh i ch are co rp o rat e en ti ti e s al l eg ed l y

s erv i ng as t h e s t at e’ s fi s cal i n t erm ed i ary fo r t h e M ed icai d pro g ram

. By s t at u t e, t h e

Lo u is i an a D ep art m en t o f Heal t h h as t h e cap aci t y t o s ue an d b e s u ed fo r p ro gram s t h at

i t ad m i n i s t e rs , s u ch as M ed i cai d

. Ho wev er, becau s e t h e L o u i s i an a Dep art m en t o f

Heal t h h as d el eg at ed

– an d th e d efen d an t s al l eg ed ly co n t ract u al l y accep t ed

– s o m e o f

t h e ad m i n i s t r a t i v e fu n ct i on s o f t h e s t at e’ s M ed i cai d p ro g ram , we fi n d t h at t h e

At t o rn ey Gen eral h as t h e ca p a c i t y, a n d h en ce a ri g h t o f act i o n , to p ro s ecu t e t h i s

l aws u i t

.BACKGROUND

Th e s tat e, rep r e s e n t ed b y i t s At t o rn ey G en eral

, fi l ed t h i s l aws u i t o n J u n e 2 6,

2 0 1 4

, ag ai n st d efen d an t s , M o l i n a Heal t h care, In c., M o l i n a In fo rm at i o n Sy s t em s ,

L.L.C. d / b / a Mo l i n a M ed i cai d So l ut i o n s , an d Un i sy s Co rp o rat io n

. As d es cri b ed in

t h e st at e’ s pet it i on , “ [o ] v er t h e l as t t h i rt y (“ 3 0 ”) y ears , t he D efen dan t s h av e b een t h e

fi scal ag en t res po n s i b l e fo r p ro ces s i n g Lo ui s i an a’ s M ed i c a l p h arm acy p ro v i d er

rei m b u rs em en t cl ai m s.” Pu r s u an t t o a co nt ract t o wh i ch t h e s t at e i ts el f i s al l eg ed l y

a p ar t y, “ t h e Defen dan t s as s u m ed op erat i o nal l i ab i l i t y ” o f a “ cu s t o m i zab l e”

co m p u t eri zed s y s t em k n o wn as t h e Lo u i s ian a M ed i care Man ag em en t In fo rm at i o n

Sy s t em (“ LM M IS”). As p art o f d efen d an t s ’ d u t i es , t h ey are “ res p o n si b l e fo r t h e

o p erat i o n an d m ai n t en an ce o f LM M IS, as wel l as creat i ng an d im pl em en t i n g d es i g n

ch an ges t o t h e LM MIS t h at co m p l y wi t h St at e an d fed eral m an dat es .”

As fu rt h er des cri bed in t h e s t at e’ s p et i t io n , s i n ce J an u ary 19 8 4, U n i s y s h as

en g ag ed i n t h e b u s i n es s o f o p erat in g , m ai nt ai ni n g , i m p l em en t i n g , an d m an ag i n g

LM M IS. In M ay 2 01 0

, t h e M o l i n a d efen d an t s acq u ired Un i s y s’ H eal t h In fo rm at i o n

M an ag em en t D i v is i o n , an d t h e Un i s y s d efen d an t b ecam e a s u bco n t ract o r o f t h e

M o l i na d efen d an t s. Un is y s co n t i n u es t o wo rk wi th t h e M o l i n a d efen d an ts t o o p erat e

LM M IS. Fo r s i m

p li ci t y ’ s sak e, g i v en t h e d efen d an t s ’ al l eg ed co rp o rat e affi l i at i o n

an d n o t i n g t he s t at e’ s rep res en t at i o n i n b ri ef t h at “ Mo l i na h as b een d i s m i s s e d fro m

t h e s u i t ,” t h i s o p i n i o n w il l refer t o t h e d efen d an t s co l l ect i v el y as “ Un i s y s

. ” 1

Th e cru x o f t he st at e’ s al l eg at i o n s in t hi s l aws u i t i s t h at Un i s y s cau s ed t h e

Lo u is i an a Dep art m en t o f Heal t h (“ LDH”) to o v erp ay M ed i cai d p harm acy pro v i d ers

t h ro u g h Un i s y s’ i m

p ro p er o p erat i o n an d m an ag em en t o f LM M IS. Un d er t h eo ri es o f

1 There is only o ne petition in the r ecord a nd, a lthoug h the court was inf o r m e d that the Molina
defendants were dismissed, t h e c o u r t i s constrained to r ecount the alleg ations as presented in the petition.

2frau d, b reach o f co n t ract

, n eg l i g en ce, an d n eg l i g en t m i srep res en t at io n , t h e s t at e

co n ten d s t h at i t i s en t i tl ed t o reco v er fro m Un i s y s t h e am o u nt s LDH o v erp ai d t o t h e

p h arm acy p ro v i d ers as far b ack as 1 98 9

. 2 T h e s t at e’ s p et i ti o n al s o p ro p o s es st at u t o ry

t h eo ri es o f reco very u n d er Lo u i s i an a’ s Un fai r Trad e Pract i ces Ac t (“ LUTPA,” La.

R.S. 5 1 : 1 4 0 1, et s eq .) an d Lo u i s i an a’ s M ed i cal As s is t an ce Pro g ram s I n t e g r i t y Law

(“ M APIL,” La. R.S. 4 6: 43 7 .1

, et s eq .); ho wev er, t h es e s t at u t o ry t h eo ri es o f reco v ery

were earl i er d i sm i s s ed o n Un i s y s ’ ex cep t i o n s o f no cau s e o f act i on

. See Sta te ex rel

.

Ca l dw el l v

. Mo l ina H e a l thca re, I nc. , 1 5 -0 49 2 (La.Ap p

. 1 Ci r. 1 / 2 2 / 1 6 )

(u n p ub l is h ed wri t act i o n ; 2 0 1 6 W L 1 0 77 1 1 14 ).

As t h e s t at e fu rt h er d es cri b es it s rem ai n i n g co n t ract -b as ed cl ai m s , Un i s y s h as

se rv ed as “ t h e fi s cal ag en t res p o n s i b l e fo r p ro ces s i n g Lo u i s i an a M ed i cai d ’ s p ha r m a c y

p ro v id er rei m

b u rs em en t cl ai m s.” LM M IS h as b een “ t h e co re to o l ” u s ed b y Un i s y s

wh i le s erv i n g as t h e st at e’ s M ed i cai d “ fi s cal ag en t

. ” Lo u i s ian a’ s M ed i cai d p ro g ram

m ai n t ai n s a d ru g fo rm

ul ary as p art o f t h e “ St at e P l a n , ” an d LM M IS s h o u l d s el ect

rei m b u rs em en t p ri ces fro m t h e l o w e s t p ri ce p o in t i n t he s t at e’ s fo rm u l ary

. Th es e

rei m b u rs em en t p ri ces are t h en p ai d b y t he s t a t e t o m ed i cal p ro vi d ers , i n cl u d i n g

p h arm aci es

. Ho wev er, acco rd i n g t o t h e s t at e, Un i s y s “ fai l [ed ] t o p ro ces s t h e St at e’ s

rei m b u rs em en t s acco rd i ng t o t h e rei m b u rs em en t fo rm

u l a s et fo rt h i n t h e St at e Pl an

.

In s t ead , t h e Defen d an t s ad ju d i cat ed cl ai m s b as ed o n a fo rm u l a t h at fai l ed t o ad h ere

t o bo t h St at e an d fed eral p o l i ci es co n cern in g rei m bu rs em en t

. ” A s a res ul t

, t h e s t at e

h as o v erp ai d “ ex ces s i v e am o u n ts ” o n rei m b u rs em e n t f

or d ru g s di s p en s ed by

p h arm aci es

.

2 L D H wa s p r e v iously known as the L ouisiana D epartment of Health and Hospitals (“DHH”).

B e cause the name c h ang e occurred during the p eriod o f t i m e covered by the state’s lawsuit, f or convenience, this opinion uses the current name, althoug h the previous name will sometimes be used when discussing pleading s or court decisions.

3Acco rd i ng t o t h e s tat e, th e s t at e was u n aware un t il recen t l y o f t h e ex ces s i v e

rei m b u rs em en t s . In co n t ras t

, t h e st at e al l eg es “ n earl y t wo -h u n d red t h i rt y

... h i g h l y

t r a i n ed p ro fes s i on al s , i n cl u di n g p ro g ram m er an al y s t s an d en g i n eers ” are em p l o ye d

b y Un i s y s , wh i ch i s “ res po n s i b l e fo r i m p l em en t in g ” a s y s t em th at co n fo rm s wi t h t h e

Lo u is i an a M ed i cai d p ro g ram

.

In t h e s am e p l ead i n g wh ereb y Un i s y s o b t ai ned d i s m i s s al o f t h e s t at e’ s st at u t o ry

cl ai m s b ro u g h t u n d er LUTPA an d M APIL, Un i s y s al s o s ou g h t d i s m i s s al o f th e s t at e’ s

co n tract -b as ed cl ai m s

. 3 N ev ert h el es s , t h e s t at e’ s co nt ract -b as e d cl ai m s were

u n t o u ch ed

, an d rem ai n ed v i ab l e, u n d er th e ap p el l at e co u rt ’ s ru li n g d i s m i s s i n g t h e

s t at u to ry cl ai m s . See Mo l i na Hea l thca re, I nc. , su p r a

.

Un i s y s rev i s i t ed i ts ex cep t i o n o f n o ri gh t o f act i o n , h o wev er, aft er t h e ap p el l at e

co u rt fo u n d t h e s t at e h ad n o ri g h t o f act i o n reg ard i n g M ed i cai d d ru g p a ym e n t s in

Sta te v

. Abbo tt La bo ra to ri es ., I nc. , 1 5 -1 6 26 (La.Ap p

. 1 Ci r. 1 0 /2 1 / 1 6 ), 2 0 8 So .3 d

3 8 4

, 3 90

, w r i t s d e n i ed

, 1 7 -0 1 4 9

, 1 7-0 1 2 5 (La. 3 / 1 3/ 1 7 ), 2 1 6 So

. 3 d 8 0 2

, 8 0 8,

o v e r r u l ed i n p art o n o t h er g ro u n d s b y Sta te, by a nd thro ug h C a l dw el l v

. A s t r a

Z eneca AB

, 1 6 -1 0 7 3 (La.Ap p

. 1 Ci r. 4 / 1 1 / 1 8 ), 2 4 9 S o

. 3 d 3 8

. Th e d i s tri ct co u rt

d en ied Un i s y s ’ ex cep t i o n o f n o ri gh t o f act i o n , ex p l ai n i n g :

Aft er carefu ll y rev i ew i n g an d co ns i d eri n g t h e m em o ran da

t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e l aw i n t h i s cas e, an d s peci fi cal l y Sta te v

. Abbo tt
La bo ra to r i es , I nc. , 2 0 1 5 -1 6 2 6 (La.Ap p

. 1 Ci r. 1 0 / 21 / 1 6 ), 2 0 8 So .3 d
3 8 4

, wr i t d

en ied

, 2 0 1 7 -0 1 2 5, 2 01 7 -[0 1] 4 9 (La. 3 /1 3 / 1 7 ), 2 0 1 7 W L
1 0 7 5 5 3 3

, 2 0 1 7 W L 1 0 76 4 6 4

, t he Co u rt fi n d s t h at t h e St at e o f Lo u i s ian a i s a p art y t o t he co nt ract an d i n d eed th e en fo rci n g b o dy wh i ch g iv es th e

3 Among o ther ex ceptions not relevant to this discussion, Unisy s broug ht the dilatory ex ception of
lack o f procedural c a

pacity a nd the peremptory e x c eption of no rig ht of action. The ex ception of
lack of procedural capacity w as premised on U nisy s’ c ontention that “[ a] s t h e s i gn at o r y on the

contracts on which the State bases this action, [ DDH]

, not the State of L ouisiana or its Attorney General, is the sole party with authority to bring this action.” Simil ar l y , the ex ception of no rig ht
of action was premised on the c ontention that DHH “ alone has privity to sue under the c ontracts and
is the real party in interest,” such that “neither the State nor the Attonrey General has any standing or rig ht of action to bring [ ] DHH’s claims.”

4St at e a real an d act u al i n t eres t i n t h i s li ti g at i o n

. In ot h er wo rd s , t h e St at e

o f Lo u i s i an a h as s t an d i n g

. ...

Un i s y s so u g h t s u p erv i s o ry rev i ew fro m t h e s am e ap p el l at e co u rt th at d eci d ed

Abbo tt La bo ra to ri es , I nc. Larg el y i n rel i an ce o n Abbo tt La bo ra to ri es , I nc. , an d

b ecau s e LDH h ad a s t at u t ory ri gh t t o s u e an d b e s u ed

, t h e ap p el l at e co u rt ag reed wi th

Un i sy s t h at t h e s t at e h ad n o ri g h t o f act i o n :

W RIT GRANTED. Un d er o u r d e n o vo rev i ew, we f

i n d t h at th e [d i s t ri ct ] co u rt erred i n d en y i n g t h e ex cep t i o n rai s i n g t h e o b ject io n o f n o ri gh t o f act i o n as t o t h e St at e o f Lo u i s i an a’ s cl ai m s o f b reach o f co n t ract

, frau d

, n eg l ig en ce, an d n eg l ig e n t m i s rep res en tat i o n

. Sta te v

. Abbo tt
La bo ra to ri es , I nc. , 2 0 1 5 -1 6 2 6 (La.Ap p

. 1 s t Ci r. 1 0 / 2 1 /1 6 ), 2 0 8 So .3 d
3 8 4

, reh ’ g d en i ed

, ( D ec. 2 2, 2 0 1 6 ), wri t s d en i ed

, 2 0 1 7 -0 1 4 9 (La.
3 / 1 3 / 1 7 ), 2 1 6 So .3 d 8 0 2 & 2 0 1 7 -0 1 2 5 (La. 3/ 1 3 / 1 7 ), 2 16 So .3 d 8 0 8

. Th e St at e of Lo ui s i an a, i t s el f, i s n o t a p art y t o an y of t h e co nt ract s at
i s su e an d h as n o cl ai m fo r t h e b reach t h e r e o f

. De nni s v

. C opel i n , 9 4 -2 0 0 2 (La.Ap p

. 4 th Ci r. 2 / 1/ 9 6 ), 6 6 9 So

. 2 d 5 5 6

, 5 6 1

, w ri t d en i ed

, 9 6 -1 0 1 2 (La. 6 / 2 1/ 96 ), 6 7 5 So .2 d 1 07 9

. Th e ri g ht b el o n g s t o t h e p art y
t o t h e co n t ract s at i s s u e, [LDH]

, wh i ch i s a b od y co rp orat e wi t h th e

p o wer t o s u e an d b e su ed

. La. R.S. 3 6 : 2 51 (A); al s o see Abbo tt
La bo ra to ri es , I nc. , 2 0 8 So .3 d 3 84

. Th e St at e of Lo ui s i an a h as n o i n t eres t i n ju di ci al l y en fo rci n g th e ri g h t s as s ert ed in th e p et i t i o n

. J enk i ns v

. C i ty o f Ba to n Ro ug e , 20 1 4 -1 2 3 5 (La.Ap p

. 1 s t Ci r. 3/ 9 /1 5 ),

1 6 6 S o

. 3d 1 03 2

, 1 0 3 5

. Acco rd i n g l y , t h e [d is tri ct ] co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t d en y i n g t h e d efen d an t ’ s ex cep t i o n o f n o ri g h t o f act i o n i s rev ers ed

, th e

ex cep t i on o f n o ri g h t o f act i o n i s su s tai n ed

, an d t h e m at t er is d i s m i s sed

, wi t h p reju d i ce.

Sta te ex rel

. Ca l dw el l v

. M o l i na Hea l thca re, Inc.

, 1 7 -0 7 78 (La.Ap p

. 1 Ci r.

8 / 1 4 / 1 8 ), (u n pu b l i s h ed wri t act i o n ; 2 01 8 W L 3 91 3 3 3 0 ).

Th e s t at e fi l ed a wri t o f cert i orari wi th t h i s co u rt

, wh i ch w as g ran t ed

. Sta te ex

rel

. Ca l dw el l v

. Mo li na Hea l thca re, I nc. , 18 -1 7 6 8 (La. 1 /1 8 / 1 9 ),

__ _ _So .3 d

_ _ _ _.

LAW a nd DI SCUSSI ON

Gen eral ly

, a l eg al act i on can b e bro u g h t o n l y b y a p ers o n h av i n g a real an d

act u al i n t eres t i n d o i n g so

. S e e L a. C.C.P. art

. 6 8 1. “ W h en th e fact s al l eg ed i n t h e

p et i t i o n p ro v i d e a rem ed y u n d er t h e l aw t o so m eo n e, b u t t h e p l ai n t iff wh o s eek s t h e

rel i ef i s n o t t h e pers o n i n wh o s e fav o r t h e l a w ex t en ds t h e rem ed y , t h e p ro p er

5o b

ject i on i s n o ri g h t o f act io n , o r wan t o f i n t eres t i n th e p l ai n t iff t o in s t i t u t e t h e s u i t .”

Ho w a rd v

. Adm i ni s tra to rs of Tul a ne Educ. Fund

, 0 7 -2 2 2 4

, p

. 1 6 (La. 7 / 1 / 0 8 ), 9 8 6

So .2 d 4 7

, 5 9 (ci t i n g 1 F RANK L

. M ARAI ST & H ARRY T

. L EMMON

, L OUI SI ANA C I VI L

L AW T REATI SE: C I V I L P ROC E D U R E § 6 .7

, 1 2 1 (1 9 9 9 )). Su ch an o bject i o n i s

p res en t ed as a p erem

p to ry ex cep t i o n o f n o ri g h t of act io n rai s ed b y t h e d efen d an t o r

n o t i ced by t h e co u rt o n i t s o wn m o t i on , i n ei t her t h e tri al or ap p el l at e co u rt

. See La.

C.C.P. art s

. 92 7 an d 2 1 6 3

. “ Th e fu n ct i on o f t h e p erem p t o ry ex cep ti o n i s t o h av e t h e

p l ai n t i ff’ s act i o n d ecl ared l eg al l y n o n ex i s t en t, o r b arred b y effect o f l aw, an d h en ce

t h i s ex cep t i o n t en d s t o d i s m i ss o r d efeat t h e act i o n .” La. C.C.P. art

. 9 2 3

.

“ Th e b urd en o f s h o wi n g t h at t h e p lai n t i ff h as st at ed n o cau s e of act i o n i s u p o n

t h e ex cep t o r.” Ci ty o f New Orl ea ns v

. Bd. o f Di recto rs o f Lo ui s i a n a S t a t e

Mus eum , 9 8 -1 1 7 0

, p

. 9 (La. 3 / 2/ 9 9 ), 7 3 9 So .2 d 7 48

, 75 5

. “ On th e t ri al o f t h e

p erem pt o ry ex cep ti o n [o f no ri g h t o f act i o n ] pl ead ed at o r p ri or t o t h e t ri al o f t h e cas e,

ev i d en ce m ay

b e i n t ro d u ced t o s u p p o rt o r co n t ro v ert an y of t he o b ject i o n s p l ead ed

,

wh en t h e g ro un d s t hereo f d o n o t ap p ear fro m t h e pet i t i o n

. ” La. C.C.P. art

. 9 3 1

. In

i n s t an ces wh en “ ev i d en ce [h as b een ] i n t ro du ced at t he h eari n g ” on a p erem p t o ry

ex cep t i o n , “ t h e t ri al co u rt 's fi n d i n g s o f fact

... are s u bject to t h e m an ifes t erro r-cl earl y

wro ng s t an d ard o f rev i ew.” Lo ndo n To w ne Co ndo m ini um Ho m eo w n e r ’ s As s ’n

v . Lo ndo n To w ne Co

. , 0 6 -4 0 1 , p . 4 (La. 1 0 / 1 7/ 06 ), 9 3 9 So .2 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 23 1

.

In o t h er res p ect s , “ [t ] h e d et erm i n at i o n o f wh et her a pl ai n t i ff h as a leg al ri g ht

t o b ri n g an act i o n rai s es a qu es t i o n o f l aw, wh ich req u i res d e n o vo rev i ew.” Rebel

Di s tri buto rs Co rp., Inc. v

. LUBA W o rk ers ’ Co m p. , 13 -0 74 9

, p

. 1 0 (La. 1 0 / 1 5 / 1 3 ),

1 4 4 So .3 d 8 2 5

, 8 3 3 (ci t i n g , in t er a l i a , Ho l l y & Sm i th A rchi tects , I nc. v

. St. Hel ena

Co ng reg a te F a ci l i ty , I nc. , 0 6 -0 5 8 2, p

. 9 (La. 1 1 / 29 / 0 6 ), 9 4 3 So .2 d 10 3 7

, 1 0 4 5

. “ An

ap p el l at e co u rt co n s id eri n g an ex cep ti o n o f n o ri g h t o f act i o n s h ou l d fo cu s o n

6w h e t h er th e p art i cu l ar p l ai nt iff h as a ri g h t t o b ri n g t h e su i t an d i s a m em b er o f t h e

cl as s o f p ers o n s t h at h as a l eg al i n t eres t in t h e s u bject m at ter of t h e l i t i g at i o n,

as s u m i n g t h e p et i t i o n st at es a v al i d cau s e o f act i on fo r so m e p ers o n .” Rebel

Di s tri buto rs , 1 3 -0 7 4 9 at 1 0

, 1 4 4 So

. 3 d at 8 3 3. If d ou b t ex i s t s ab o u t t h e

ap p ro p ri at en es s o f an o b

ject i on o f n o ri g h t o f act i o n, i t i s t o b e res o l v ed i n fav o r o f

t h e p l ai n t i ff. R ebel Di s tri buto rs , 1 3 -0 7 4 9 at 1 0

, 1 4 4 So

. 3 d at 8 3 3

.

In t h e i n s t an t cas e, as n o ted earl i er, o n l y no n -s tat u t o ry cl ai m s, s t em m i n g fro m

Un i sy s ’ co n t ract t o al l eg ed l y s erv e a s t h e f i scal i n t erm ed i ary fo r Lo u i s i an a’ s

M e d i cai d p ro g ram , rem ai n vi ab le ag ai ns t Un is y s. Un i s y s ’ ex cep t i o n t o t h o s e

co n tract -b as ed cl ai m s i s p ri m ari l y b as ed o n La. R.S. 3 6 : 2 51 (A), wh i ch

, i n p ert i n en t

p art

, p ro v i des : “ [LDH] i s creat ed an d s h al l b e a bo d y co rp o rat e w i th t h e p o wer t o s u e

an d b e s u ed .” Acco rd i n g t o Un i s y s , t h e p o wer o f LDH t o s u e a n d b e s u ed i s

co n si s t en t wi t h p o w e r s as cri b ed t o LDH’ s s ecret ary

. See, e.g ., La. R.S.

3 6 : 2 5 4 (D)(1 )(a)(i ) (LDH’ s “ s ecret ary sh al l di rect an d b e res p o n s i b le fo r t h e M ed i cal

As s is t an ce Pro g ram .”); i d

. (D)(2 )(i i )(d ) ( g en eral l y em p o weri ng LDH’ s s ecret ary to

“ [f] i l e s u i t o n b eh al f o f t h e M ed i cal As s i s tan ce Pro gram ”).

Un i s y s ren ewed i t s e x c ep t i o n o f n o ri g h t o f act i o n i n li gh t of Abbo tt

La bo ra to ri es , I nc. , i n wh i ch t he co u rt ci ted i n t er a l i a La. R.S. 3 6 : 2 5 1 an d ru l ed : “ In

t h e ab s en ce of co n s ti tu t i o n al o r s t at u t o ry p ro vi s i o n s t o t h e co n t rary , t h e St at e can n ot

b ri n g a cau s e o f act i o n t h at i s t h e pro p ert y of o n e of i t s p o l i t i cal s u b d i v i si o n s wh i ch

h as t h e r i g h t t o s u e an d b e s u ed .” Abbo tt La bo ra to ri es , I nc. , 1 5 -1 6 2 6 at 6

, 2 0 8

So .3 d at 3 8 8

. Bas ed o n A bbo tt La bo ra to ri es , I nc. , Un i s y s p res en t l y co n t en d s t h at

La. R.S. 3 6 :2 51 (A) v es t s LDH w i t h t h e ex cl u s iv e p o wer t o fi l e s u i t an d

, t h u s , t h e s t at e

an d i t s At t orn ey

Gen eral h av e n o ri gh t o f act i o n.

7Th e s tat e res p o nd s t h at “ [t ] h e fact t h a t o n e d ep art m en t m ay h av e a ri g h t o f

act i on d o es n o t p recl u d e o th ers fro m al s o hav i n g on e.” Th e s t at e em p has i zes t h at La.

Co n s t

. art

. IV, § 8 4 d es cri b es t h e p o wers o f t h e At to rn ey Gen eral : “ As n eces s ary fo r

t h e as s ert i o n o r p ro t ect i o n of an y ri g h t o r i n t eres t o f t h e st at e, t h e at t o rn ey g en e r a l

s h al l hav e au t ho ri t y (1 ) t o i n st i t u t e, p ro secu t e, o r in t erv en e i n an y ci v i l act i o n o r

p ro ceed in g

... .” 5 Ac c o r d i n g t o th e s t at e, t h e leg i sl at u re’ s co n ferri ng ju ri d i cal

cap aci t y o n LDH d id n o t s ev er LDH fro m t h e l arg er s tat e “ b o d y p o li t i c.” Rel at ed l y ,

t h e co n t ract wi t h Un i sy s was no t fo r LDH al o ne b ut rat her, “ t h e en t i r e p u r p os e o f t h e

co n tract was t o b en efi t t h e St at e b y es t ab li sh i n g a co s t-effect i v e ad m i n i st rat i o n fo r t h e

St at e M ed i cai d p ro gram

. ”

As an i n i t ial ob s erv at i o n , fo cu s i n g –as o u r ci vi l law m et h o do l o g y req u i res

– o n

t h e s t at ut o ry t ex t

, La. R.S. 3 6: 2 5 1 ( A )

, r e l i ed o n by U n i s y s , d oes n o t u s e t h e t erm

“ ex cl u s i v e,” o r wo rd s t o th at effect

, wh en d es cri b i n g LDH’ s ri g h t t o fi l e s u i t

. Ev en

s o , n o t ev ery g ov ern m en t al en t it y h as b een s t at u t o ri l y au t h o ri zed as h av i n g t h e ri g ht

t o s u e an d b e s u ed

. A card i n al ru l e o f s tat u t o ry i n t erp r e t a t i o n d i rect s t h at

p res u m p t i v el y “ ev ery w o rd

, s en t en ce, o r p ro v is io n in a l aw was i n t en d ed t o s erv e

4 U nisy s arg u es that the A ttorney General is precluded from asserting a c onstitutional b asis to defeat Unisy s’ ex ception o f no rig ht o f action because the first t i m e such assertion was made was in the appellate court, and then on rehearing

. This arg ument lacks merit b ecause the A ttorney General prevailed ag ainst Unisy s’ ex ception until the appellate court g ranted the ex ception on initial hearing

. The Attorney

General was not required to raise all arg uments in support of its favorable judg ment until the appellate court g ranted U nisy s’ ex ception and then, f or the first time, the A ttorney General

soug h t a reversal of a judg ment. See L a. C.C.P. art. 2133(B ) (“A party who does not s ee k modification, revision, or reversal of a judg ment in an a ppellate court, including the supreme court,

may assert, in support of the judg ment, any arg ument supported by the record, althoug h he has not appealed, answered the appeal, or applied for supervisory writs.”).

5 The A ttorney General also points to L a. R.S. 13:5036, a statute with similar wording a s L a. Const.

art. I V, § 8 : “The attorney g e neral may institute a nd prosecute a

ny and all suits he may deem

necessary for the protection of the interests and rig hts of the state.” L a. R.S. 13:5036. B ecause the

L ouisiana Constitution is a superior source of law with substantially similar p rovisions as a statute, the constitutional provisio n w i l l be considered. Therefore, the a naly sis focuses on whether the similar wording found in L a. Const. art. I V, § 8 defeats Unisy s’ e x ception. See Louisiana F ed’n
of Teachers v. State

, 13-0120, p

. 2 (L a. 5/7/ 1 3), 118 So.3d 1033, 1037 (observing that

“ co n s t i tutional provisions are never mere technicalities, but are part o f the basic, fundamental provisions in our sy stem of laws”).

8s o m e u s efu l p u rp os e, t h at s o m e effect i s t o b e g i v en t o each s u ch p ro v i s i o n , an d t h at

n o u n n eces s ary wo rd s o r p ro v i s i o ns were em p lo y ed .” Lo ui s i a na Fed’n o f Tea chers

v

. Sta te

, 1 3 -0 1 2 0, p

. 39 (La. 5/ 7/ 1 3 ), 1 1 8 So .3 d 1 03 3

, 1 0 5 7-5 8

. Al s o , “ a s t at u t e m o re

s p eci fi cal l y d i rect ed t o t h e m at t er a t i ss u e m us t p rev ai l as an ex cep t i o n t o a s t at u t e

m o re g en eral in ch aract er.” Es tev e v. Al l s ta te I ns

. Co

. , 3 5 1 So .2 d 11 7

, 1 2 1 (La.

1 9 7 7 ). If t h e s e were t h e o n l y p ri n ci p l es at is su e, th e an al y s i s wo u l d b e l i k el y b e

co m p l et e an d Un i sy s wo u l d p rev ai l b ecau s e t h e co u rt wo u l d b e co n s trai n ed t o h o ld

t h at t h e au t h o ri zat i o n i n La. R.S. 3 6 : 2 5 1 (A) fo r L DH t o s u e an d b e s u ed i s a m o re

s p eci fi c l aw t h an t he au t h o ri zat i o n i n La. R.S. 1 3 : 5 0 36 fo r t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral to

fi le l aws u i ts

. Ho wev er, an d u n l i k e Abbo tt La bo ra to ri es , Inc.

, t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral

n o t o n l y rel i es o n t h e s t at u t o ry au t h o ri t y t o fi l e s u i t un d er La. R.S. 13 : 5 0 3 6

, b u t al s o

rel i es o n t h e co ns t i t u ti on al au t h o ri t y t o d o s o u n d er La. Co n st . art . IV, § 8

. 6

To res t at e t he an al y s is t o t h i s p o i n t

, Un i s y s rel i es o n LDH’ s s t at u t o ry ri g h t to

s u e an d be su ed

, wh ereas t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral rel ies on t h e co n s t i t u t i o nal ri g h t o f t h e

At t o rn ey Gen eral t o fi l e ci v i l l aws u i ts

. Un i s y s co n t en d s t h at t h e fact t h e l eg i s l at u re

ex p res s l y co n ferred a ri g h t t o su e o n L DH m ean s t h at LDH’ s ri gh t i s ex cl us i v e an d

p recl u d es t h e At to rn ey Gen eral fro m fi l i n g la w suits innvolvi n g t h e Med i cai d p ro g ram

ad m i n is t ered b y LDH. Th e s t at e co n t en d s t hat t he At t o rn ey Gen eral ’ s co n s t i t u t i o n al

au t h o ri t y t o fi l e l aws u i t s i s b ro ad

, i f n o t un fet t ered

, an d en ab l es t h e A t t orn ey Gen eral

t o b ri ng t h e in s tan t laws u i t. Ho wev er, t h e l eg i s l at u re h as s een fi t t o s peci fi cal l y

6 The appellate court’s decision in Abbott Laboratories, Inc. was based on the observation that the

MAPI L and L UTPA statutes conferred a rig h t of action in f

avor of the Attorney

General. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

, 15-1626 at 8-9, 208 So.3d at 389-90. Howeve r , t he court f ound no statutory authoriz ation for the Attorney General to bring claims for “fraud, neg lig e nt misrepresentation, redhibition, a

nd unjust enrichment.” Unlike the instant case, the Attorney General apparently did

not a ssert c onstitutional a uthority as a basis for a r ig ht of action to bring those claims: “the State has

not pointed out to this court, a nd we have not found, authority for the State to b ring its claims outside
of L UTPA and MAPI L for fraud, neg lig ent misrepresentation, redhibition, and unjust enrichment.” Abbott Laboratories, Inc. , 15-1626 at 9, 208 So.3d at 390.

9au t h o ri ze th e At t o rn ey Gen eral t o fi l e l aws u i t s i n cert ai n cau s es o f ac t i o n

. Fo r

ex am p l e, o n e n eed l o o k n o f

u rt h er t h an t h i s cas e, i n wh i ch t he At t o rn ey Gen eral ’ s

p et i t i o n ci t es s t at u t es co n ferri n g a u t h o ri t y t o t he At t o rn ey Gen eral t o b ri n g act i on s

u n d er LUTPA an d MAPIL. Th e l eg i sl at u re’ s ex p res s g ran t o f au t h o ri ty i n cert ai n

cau s es of act i o n t en d s to un d erm i n e t he b read t h th at t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral wo u l d h av e

t h i s co u rt n o w i n t erp ret La. Co n s t

. art

. IV, § 8 t o co n fer. Th erefo re, it m i g h t b e s ai d

t h at La. R.S. 3 6 : 2 5 1(A) (co n ferri n g o n LDH t he ri g ht t o s u e a n d b e su ed ) an d La.

C o n s t

. a r t

. IV, § 8 (d es cri b i n g t h e At to rn ey G en eral ’ s ri g h t t o fi l e l aws u i t ) are i n

co n fl i ct

. Ho wev er, t h i s co u rt i s t as k ed wi t h as cert ai n in g wh et h er a co n fl i ct b et ween

t h e ci t ed p ro v i si o ns i s m erel y s u p erfi ci al an d wh et h er th e su b st an ce o f t h es e l aws can

b e h arm o n i zed

. “ [B] ecau s e i t i s p res u m ed t h at t h e l eg is l at u r e a c t s wi t h i n i t s

co n st i t u t io n al au t h o ri t y

i n en act i n g l eg i s l at i o n, t hi s co u rt m u s t co n s t ru e a s t at u t e s o

as t o pres erv e i t s co ns t it u t i o n al i t y wh en i t i s reas o n ab le t o d o s o .” Ci ty o f New

Orl ea n s v

. Lo ui s i a na As s es so rs ’ Ret. & Rel i ef Fund

, 0 5 -2 5 4 8

, p p

. 12 -1 3 (La.

1 0 / 1 / 0 7 ), 9 8 6 So .2 d 1 , 1 2-1 3

.

Ou r an al y s i s co n t i n ues acco rd i ng l y , wi t h an ai m t o h arm o n ize, i f po s si b l e, t h e

l eg i s lat i v el y -as cri b ed st at u s o f t h e LDH as “ a b o d y co rp o rat e wi t h t h e p o wer t o s u e

an d b e s u ed ” an d t h e co n s t i t u ti o n ’ s d i rect i on t h at “ [a] s n eces s ary fo r th e as sert i o n o r

p ro t ect i o n o f an y ri g h t o r i nt eres t o f t h e s t at e, t h e at t o rn ey g en eral s hal l h av e au t h o ri t y

(1 ) to i n s t i t u t e, p ro s ecu t e, o r i n t erv en e i n an y ci vi l act i o n o r p ro ceed i n g .” See La.

R.S. 3 6 : 2 5 1 (A); La. Co n s t. art

. IV, § 8. Th i s i s t h e fi rs t t i m e t h i s co u rt i s cal l ed o n

t o ex am i n e h o w t h es e t wo s p eci fi c l aws rel at e, b u t

, i n a b ro ad er s e n s e , t h i s i s n o t a

n o v el is s u e. Th e ju ri s pru den ce p ro vi d es s i g n i fi can t an d l o n g st an d i n g g u id an ce in

o t h er i n s t an ces in wh i ch a g ov ern m en t al en t i t y has l eg i s l at i v el y -co n ferred s t at u s to

“ s u e o r b e s u ed ,” an d t h e At t orn ey Gen eral s ou g h t t o rep res en t t h at en ti t y

.

10In S ta te v

. Tens a s D el ta La nd Co

. , 1 2 6 La. 5 9

, 52 So

. 2 1 6 (1 9 1 0 ), “ t h e

At t o rn ey Gen eral i n t h e n am e o f t h e s tat e” b ro u g ht a l aws u i t t o res ci n d al l eg ed l y

frau du l en t l an d co n v ey an ces fro m Ten s as Bas i n l ev ee di st ri c t

. T h e t arg et s o f t h e

l aws u i t were n in e no n res i d en t d efen d an ts w h o al l eg ed l y co n s p i red w i t h lev ee d i s t ri ct

co m m i s s io n ers t o b u y l an d fo r “ n o m i n al ” p ri ces an d res el l t h e l an d fo r ap p ro x i m at el y

f o u r t i m es t h e p u rch as e pri ce. I d

. 5 2 So

. at 2 1 7

. Th e d efen d an t s l o d g ed v a r i o u s

ex cep t i o n s , i n cl ud i n g an ex cep t i o n t h at t h e s tat e “ h as n o ri g h t

, p o wer, o r au t h o ri t y to

p ro s ecu te an d m ai nt ai n t h i s act i o n ” i n su ch cap aci t y

. I d

. 5 2 S o

. at 2 1 8

. As t h e

Tens a s Del ta La nd Co

. d efen d an t s fu rt her u rg ed

, t h e s t a t e h ad “ creat ed t h e

co rp o rat i o n k n o wn as t h e Bo ard o f Lev ee Co m m is si o n ers o f t h e Ten sas Bas i n Lev ee

Di s t ri ct

, an d g i v en i t fu l l p o wer t o su e an d b e s ued .” I d

. Ad d i t i o nal l y , t h e s t at e h ad

“ au t h o ri zed th e sai d bo ard to co n t r a c t w i t h t hes e defen d an t s i n reg ard t o s ai d l an d s

an d t o su e t o reco v er t h e s am e.” I d

.

Th e Tens a s Del ta La nd Co

. co u rt ag reed t h at n ei th er t h e At t o rn ey G en eral n o r

t h e s tat e h ad a ri g h t o f act i o n t h at s u rv i v ed th e leg i s l at ure’ s co n ferri n g co rp o rat e

s t at u s on a g o v ern m en t al en t i t y wi t h t h e ri g h t t o s u e an d b e su ed

. I d

. 52 So

. at 2 2 1.

As a g en eral p ro p o s i t i o n , t h e Tens a s Del ta La nd Co

. co urt reject ed an arg u m en t fo r

d u p l i cat i ve ri g h ts t o s u e, ak i n t o t h e arg u m en t t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral h as rai s ed i n t h e

i n s t an t cas e, ex pl ai n i n g :

Th e arg um en t t h at t h e s ai d b oa r d i s n ot h i n g m o re t h an a m ere
ag en cy o r i n s t ru m en t al i t y o f t h e s t a t e , an d th at t h erefo re t h e st at e m ay

s u e i n ev ery cas e wh ere t h e s ai d b o ard m i gh t s u e, co nt ai ns a m a n i f e s t

n o n seq u i t u r. E v ery ci ty

, t o wn , an d p ari s h o f t h e s t at e i s a m ere ag en cy

o r i n s t ru m en tal i t y o f t h e s t at e; b ut n o o ne wo u l d v en t ure t o s ay t h at th e At t o rn ey G en eral co u l d i g n o re t h e ex is t en ce o f t h es e co rp o rat io n s an d

en fo rce, i n th e n am e o f t he s t at e, an y cau s e o f act io n wh i ch an y o f th em

m i g h t h av e.

Th e l eg i s lat i v e co n t ro l o v er co rp o rat io n s o f t h e ch aract er o f t h i s l ev ee b o ard is m

u ch m o re c o m

p l et e t h an o v er m

u n i ci p al co rp o rat i o n s

11p ro p er a n d p a r i s h –i t m ad e t h em , an d can at an y ti m e ab o l i s h t h em , s o

l o n g as t h e o b l i g at i o n s o f t h ei r co n t ract s are n o t th ereb y i m p ai red

– b u t

t h es e co rp o rat io n s h av e t h ei r ex i s ten ce an d ex erci se t h ei r fu n ct i o n s b y

an d u n d er t h e Co n s t i tu ti o n an d s t at u t es o f t h e s t at e, an d s o l o n g as t hes e

es t ab l i sh ed l aws rem ai n i n fo rce i t i s t h ey wh i c h m u s t reg ul at e th e
p ro p ert y an d o th er ri g h t s o f s ai d co rp o rat i o n s an d t h ei r m od es o f act i o n ,
a n d t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h ei r p ro p ert y , an d t h ei r ri g h t s to su e an d t o b e

s u ed

. If o n e o f t h es e co rp o rat i on s h av e a r i g h t o f act i o n , t h e p ro p er fu n ct i o n ary t o en fo rce s am e i s t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f th e co rp o rat i o n ,
an d n o t t h e At to rn ey

Gen eral , o r t h e s t at e.

I d

. To t h e g e n e r a l p ro p o s i t i o n t h at t h e s t at e an d At t o rn ey Gen eral hav e n o ri g ht to

s u e d u p l icat iv e o f t he st at u to ry ri g h t t o su e co nferred o n a g ov ern m en t al en t i t y , t h i s

co u rt p ro v i d ed an ex cep ti o n :

[I] t i s t ru e t h at i f t h e g o v ern in g b o dy o f o ne o f t h es e co rp orat i o n s fai l s i n i t s d u t y t o b ri n g a s u i t wh i ch cl earl y i t o u g ht t o b ri n g, t h e co u rt s m ay (o n l y , h o wev er, un d er h i g h l y ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s t an ces ) al l o w an y ci t i ze n o r t ax p ay er o f th e d i st ri ct t o b ri n g t h e s u it ; an d

, i n su ch a cas e,
t h e s am e p ri v i l eg e m i g h t fo r th e s a m e reas o n b e ex t en ded to t h e s t at e; b u t n o t h in g o f t h at k i n d i s p ret en d ed i n t h is cas e.

I d

.

Aft er T e n s a s D el ta La nd Co

. , t h i s co u rt vi s i t ed t h e q u es t i o n o f wh et h er t h e

At t o rn ey Gen eral o r a s t at e ag en cy , t h e Lo u is i an a h ig h way co m m i s s i o n , h ad au t h o ri t y

t o h i re co u n s el t o rep res en t t h e h i g h way co m m is s i o n

. Sa i nt v

. A l l en , 1 72 La. 3 5 2,

1 3 4 So

. 2 4 6

, 2 4 6-4 7, 2 4 9 (1 9 3 1 ). Th e l eg i s lat u re h ad es t ab li s h ed t h at t h e h i g h way

“ [c] o m m i s s i o n s h al l b e a b o d y co rp o rat e an d as s uch m ay s u e an d b e s u ed

, p l ead an d

b e im pl e a d e d

, i n an y Co u rt o f Ju s t i ce.” I d

. , 1 3 4 So

. at 2 4 7 (q u ot i n g 1 9 2 1 La. A ct s

Ex

. Ses s

. 9 5 § 3). Rel y i n g o n “ t h e pro v i s i o ns o f t he Co ns t i t u t i o n , creat i n g t h e o ffi ce

o f At t o rn ey Gen eral an d d efi n i n g t h e d u ti es th ereo f,” 7 th e At t o rn ey Gen eral i n Al l en

7 The constitutional provision then in effect, in pertinent part, indicated:

The Attorney

General and the assistants ... shall attend to, and ha

ve charg e of all leg al matters in which the State h as an interest, or to w hich the State
is a party

, with power a

nd a uthority to institute and prosecute o r to intervene in any and all suits or o ther proceeding s, civil or criminal, as they may d eem n ecessary for the assertion or protection of the rig h ts and interests of the State.

12arg u ed h e h ad t he au t h o ri t y t o h i re co u n sel an d t h at an y l eg i s l at i o n t o t h e co n t rary

was u nco n s t it u t i o nal

. I

d

. , 1 3 4 So . at 2 4 6 -4 7

.

Th e Al l en co u rt reject ed t h e At to rn ey Gen eral ’ s res ort t o t h e co ns t i t u t i o n al l y

d es cri b ed d u t i es as a ju s ti fi cat i o n t o o verri d e t h e sep arat e nat u r e o f t h e h i g h way

co m m i s s io n as es tab l i s h ed b y th e l eg i s l at u re. Th e co u rt ex pl ai n ed :

It was n ot i n t en d ed t h at t h e wo rd

, “ i n t eres t ,” u sed i n t h i s s ect i o n [La. Co n s t

. 1 9 2 1 art

. V II, § 5 6 ]

, sh o u l d b e recei ved o r i n t erp ret ed i n i t s b ro ad es t s en se, i n co n n ect i o n wi t h t h e i n t eres t s , po s ses s ed by t h e s t at e. Su ch an i nt erp ret at i o n w o u l d m ak e t he acco m p l i s h m en t o f t h e d ut i es o f

t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral an d h i s as s i s tan t s, n ex t t o i m po s s i b l e, i f n o t i m p o s s i b l e. Th erefo re, s o f ar as rel at es t o t he Co n s ti t ut i o n , t hat
i n s t ru m en t

, wi t h referen ce t o t h e d ut i es of t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral an d h i s

as s i s t an t s , h as co n fi n ed

, b y i m p l i cat i on , t h e d u t i es , t h ere d e m a n d ed t o b e ren d ered

, t o t ho s e i n t eres t s , p o s s es s ed b y th e s t at e, as a d i st i nct en t i t y ,
an d h as l eft i t t o t h e Leg i s l at u re t o i m p os e s uch o t h er du t i es u p o n t h o s e

o ffi ci al s as i t m ay

d eem p ro p er t o d o fro m

t i m e t o t i m e.

I d

.

Th e Al l en co u rt al s o reject ed two arg u m en t s t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral es s en t i al l y

rep ro d u ces i n t h e i n st an t cas e

. Th o s e a r g u m en t s , as s t at ed i n Al l en , are t h at t h e

At t o rn ey Gen eral h as au t h o ri ty t o rep res en t t h e g ov ern m en t al ag en cy becau s e: 1 ) al l

rel ev an t co n tract s were “ m ad e i n t h e n am e o f t h e st at e,” an d 2 ) b ecau s e “ t h e s t at e

p ro v id es t h e c o m m i s s i o n wi th fu n ds wi th wh i ch t o d i s ch arg e t h e pu rp os es o f i t s

creat i o n.” Al l en , 1 3 4 So . at 2 4 9 . Th i s co u rt ex p l ai ned :

Th es e fact s , h o wev er, are i n s u ffi ci en t t o m ak e t h e co m m i s s io n an d t he

s t at e o n e an d t h e s am e. Th ey m erel y s h o w t h a t t h e co m m i s s i o n i s an
ag en cy o f t h e s t at e. It d o es n o t ev en fo l l ow t h at

, b ecau s e co n tract s fo r h i g h way i m

p ro v em en t s m

u s t b e en t ered i n t o i n t h e n am e of t h e s t at e,

s u i t s o n s u ch co n t ract s s h o u l d b e b ro u g h t by t h e s t at e o r ag ai n s t i t

, fo r
t h e co m m is s i o n , as a b o d y co rp orat e, i s g i v en ex p res s po wer t o s u e an d
b e s u ed

, w h i c h sh o w s t h at s uch s u i t s (wh ich m i g h t b e reas o n ab l y

ex p ect ed t o co n s ti t u t e t h e g reat er p art o f t h e l i t i g at i o n i n wh i ch th e

co m m i s s i o n m i g h t b eco m e i n v o l v ed ) s h o u l d b e i n s t it u t ed b y th e

co m m i s s i o n , an d n o t b y

t h e s t at e.

Allen , 134 So. at 247 (quoting L a. Const. 1921 art. VI I , § 56).

13I

d

. Th e Al l en co u rt reas o n ed t h at u nl es s t he l eg i s lat u re p ro v id ed o t h erwi s e , t h e

At t o rn ey Gen eral ’ s co n s t i t u t io nal l y -d es cri b ed d u t i es were l i m i t ed t o rep res en t i n g t h e

s t at e, n o t i t s ag en ci es :

Ou r co n c l u si o ns t h erefo re are t hat th e Co n st i t u t i o n , in d efi n i n g
t h e d u ti es o f t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral an d h i s as s i s t an t s , co n fi n es t h o s e d u t i es , b y i m

p l i cat i o n , t o t h e s t at e, as a d is t in ct en t i t y fro m i t s co rp o rat e
ag en ci es , an d t o t h e d ut i es i m p o s ed u p o n t h o s e o ffi ci al s b y l aw, an d t hat

t h e Lo u i s i an a h i g hway co m m i s si o n i s o ne o f t h o s e ag en ci es , an d h en ce
t h e d u t i es an d p o wers o f t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral an d h is as s i s t an t s do n ot

, b y v i r t u e of t h e Co n s t i t u t i o n , s av e as s om e o f t h o s e du t i es m a y b e
p res cri b ed by

s t at ut e, at t ach t o t h e co m m i ss i o n

.

I d

.

As a l as t an al y t i cal s t ep i n Al l en , t h i s co u rt ex am i n ed “ wh et h er an y s t at u t e o f

t h e s t at e i m

p os es u p o n t he At t orn ey Gen eral an d h i s as s i s t an t s t he d u t y o f

rep res en t i n g t h e co m

m i s s io n, an d t h i s , t o t h e ex cl us i o n o f t h e ri g h t

, o n t h e p art o f t h e

co m m i s s io n , to em

p l o y o t h er co u n s el .” I

d

. , 1 3 4 So

. at 2 4 9

. Th i s co u rt fo u n d n o s u ch

s t at u te an d co ncl u d ed t h e p o wer t o rep res en t t h e co m m is si o n was o ff-l i m i t s t o t h e

At t o rn ey Gen eral b ecau s e o f t h e “ i m p l i ed po wer t o em

p l o y co u n s el

... , ari s i n g o u t o f

t h e p o w er t o s u e an d b e s u ed .” I d

. 1 34 So

. at 2 5 0.

In Sta te ex rel

. J o nes v

. Do ucet

, 2 0 3 La. 74 3

, 1 4 So .2 d 6 22 (1 9 4 3 ), t h i s co u rt

ag ai n ex am i n ed t h e au t ho ri t y of t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral to bri n g l i t i g at i o n o n t h e s t at e’ s

b eh al f i n l i gh t of an o th er g o v ern m en t al en ti t y h av i n g th e cap aci t y t o s u e an d b e s u ed

.

Th e At t o rn ey Gen eral al l eg ed a “ fo rm er s h eri ff o f St

. Lan d ry Pari s h

... m i su s ed an d

o t h erwi s e m is ap p ro p ri at ed ” fu n d s t ot al i ng $ 2 5 ,4 7 3 .3 0 “ du ri n g h i s t en u re o f o ffi ce.”

I d

. 1 4 So .2 d at 6 2 3

. Th e At t o rn ey Gen eral fu rt h er co n t e n d e d “ t h at i f t h e al l eg ed

i rreg ul ari t i es h ad n o t o ccu rred t h ere wo ul d ex i s t a s u rp l us in t h e Sh eri ff’ s Sal ary Fu n d

o f St

. L an d ry Pari s h t o b e rem i t t ed

... t o t h e St at e o f Lo u i s i an a an d t o it s v ari ou s

t ax i n g bo d ies o f St

. L an d r y P a r i s h .” I d

. Th e Do ucet co urt ru l ed “ t h at t h e St at e o f

14Lo u is i an a is en ti t l ed to reco v er h erei n th at p o rt io n o f t he al l eg ed s u rp l u s i n t h e

Sh eri ff’ s Sal ary Fu nd d u e an d o wi n g t o i t; b ut wi t h res p ect t o t h o s e fu n d s bel o n g i n g

t o i t s po l i t i cal s ub d i v i s i o n s i t h as n ei t h er a ca u s e n o r ri gh t o f act i o n .” I d

. 1 4 So .2 d

at 6 2 6

.

Th i s co urt i n Do ucet reject ed t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral ’ s ar g u m en t t h at h i s

co n st i t u t io n al “ d u t y o f rep res en t i n g t h e s t at e in al l l eg al m at t ers i n w hi ch i t h as an

i n t e r e s t” g av e t h e s t at e a ri g h t o f act i o n. Id

. 1 4 So .2 d at 62 5

. Th e co u rt ex p l ai n ed

t h at t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral ’ s co n s t i t u t i on al d u t y d o es n o t res u l t in th e s t at e “ t h ereb y

[b ei n g ] gran t ed an in teres t i n cl ai m s b el on g in g t o it s s u b di v is i on .” I d

. Th i s co urt ’ s

ju ri s p ru den ce, i n cl u d i n g Tens a s Del ta La nd Co

. , s u p ra , d em o n st rat es “ t h e

fu n d am en t al pro po s i t i o n t hat

, i n t he ab s en ce o f co n s ti t ut i on al or s t at u t ory p ro v i s i on s

t o t h e co n t rary , t h e s t at e can no t s t a n d i n j ud g m en t o n a cau s e o f act i o n t h at i s t h e

p ro p ert y o f o ne of i t s p o l i ti cal s u b d i v is i o n s wh i ch h as t h e ri g h t t o s u e an d b e s u ed .”

Do ucet , 1 4 So .2 d at 6 2 5

.

Of g reat i m

po rt an ce fo r t h e i n s t an t cas e, t h e Do ucet co u rt ack n o wl ed g ed t h e

g e n e r al ru l e an d an ex cep t i o n es t ab l i s h ed i n Tens a s Del ta La nd Co

. Th e g en er a l

ru l e was d es cri b ed i n t h i s m an n er:

It h as lo ng b een s et t l ed i n o u r ju ri s p ru d en ce t h at as a g en eral ru l e
t h e s t at e i s wi t h o u t au th o ri t y t o i n st it u t e s u i t o n a cau s e o f act i o n b el o ng i n g to a p ol i t i cal s u b d i vi s i o n t hat po s s es s e s t h e ri g h t t o s u e an d
b e s u ed

. Th is was h el d i n Sta te v

. Tens a s Del ta La nd Co m pa ny , Li m i ted , 1 9 1 0

, 1 26 La. 5 9 , 5 2 So . 2 1 6 , 2 2 1 ...

.

Do ucet

, 1 4 So .2 d at 62 4. T h e ex cep t i o n, ex p l ai n ed i n t erm s o f t he “ h i g h l y

ex c e p t i on al ci rcu m s t an ces ” no t ed in Tens a s Del ta La nd Co

. , was d es cri b ed as

fo l l o w s :

Of co u rs e, i f a p o l i t i cal s u b d i v i s io n s h ou l d n eg l e ct or refu s e t o i n s t i t u t e s ui t a n d t o as s ert i t s ri g ht s as b en efi ci ary o f a cl ai m , w h i ch i s

n o t s h o wn t o e x i s t i n t h e i n s tan t co n t ro v ers y , an al t o g et her d ifferen t

15s i tu at i o n w o u l d ari s e. Res p ect i n g a m at t er o f t h at n at u re, t he fo l l owi n g

l an g uag e fro m t he Tens a s Del ta La n d C o mpa ny d eci s i on , s u p r a , i s
ap p ro p ri at e:

Ag ai n, i t i s t ru e t h at i f t h e g o v ern i n g b o d y o f o ne o f t hes e

co rp orat i o n s fai l s in i t s d u t y t o b ri n g a s u it wh i ch cl earl y i t

o ug h t t o b ri n g , th e c o u r t s m ay (o n ly

, h o wev er, u nd er h ig hl y ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s t an ces al l o w an y ci t i z en o r
t ax pay er o f t h e d i s t ri ct t o b ri n g t h e su i t ; an d

, i n s u ch a cas e,
t h e s am e p ri v i leg e m i g h t fo r t h e s am e reas o n b e ex t en d ed

t o t h e s t at e; bu t n o t h i n g o f t h at k i n d is p r e t e n d ed i n t h i s

cas e. . . .

Do ucet , 1 4 So .2 d at 6 2 5

.

Hav i n g d i s cern ed a g en eral rule that th e At t o rn ey Gen eral l ack s au t h o ri t y t o fi l e

s u i t fo r a c a u s e o f act i on m o re p ro p erl y b ro u g h t b y a g o v ern m en t al en t i t y wi t h t h e

cap aci t y t o s u e an d b e s u ed

, t he v i ab i l it y of t h i s gen eral ru l e m u s t b e d e term i n ed

.

Ov er t h e co u rs e o f m an y d ecad es , th i s co u rt h as l eft i n t act t h es e s em i n al ru l i n g s , wi th

t h e o ccas i o n o n l y to ap p ly t h e g en eral ru l e an d th e co n seq u en ces t hat fl ow fro m i t

, n ot

t h e ex cep t i on

. Fo r ex am

p l e, ci ti n g in t er a l i a Tens a s D el ta La nd C o

. , i n Sta te, Dep’t

o f Hi ghw a y s v

. Ci ty o f Pi nev il l e , 4 0 3 So .2 d 4 9

, 5 2 (La. 1 9 8 1 ), t h e co u rt fo u n d, as

a co n seq u en ce o f t h e g en eral ru l e, t h at :

t h e “ St at e,” fo r th e p u rp o s e s o f t h e co n s t i t u t i on al i m m u n it y fro m
p res cri p t i o n , d oes n o t i n cl u d e a st at e ag en cy wh i ch i s a b o d y co rp o rat e wi t h t h e p o w er t o s ue an d b e s u ed an d wh ich

, wh en ves t ed w it h a cau s e

o f act i o n , i s t h e so l e p art y cap ab l e o f as s ert i n g i t

. Reg ard l es s o f i t s

s t at u s as an i n s t ru m en t al i t y o f t h e st at e, s u ch an ag en cy rem ai n s a d i s t i n ct l eg al en t i t y s u b

je c t t o cl ai m s o f pres cri p t i o n ex cep t w h ere th e l aw p ro v i d es o t h erwi s e.

Al s o reco g n i zi n g t h e co n t i n u ed v i ab il i t y o f t h e ru l i n g s in Do ucet

, Al l en , an d Tens a s

Del ta La nd Co

. , i t was n eces s ary t o d i s ti n gu i sh t h os e cas es in Sta te ex rel

. Gus te v.

Si m o ni
, Heck & As s o ci ates

, 3 3 1 So .2 d 4 7 8, 4 8 2 (La. 1 9 7 6 ), as fo l l o ws : “ Th e p res en t

s i tu at i o n i s d i s ti n g u i s h ab l e fro m t h o s e [cas es ] t h erei n co n cern ed

, i f o nl y i n t h at h ere,

n o t o n l y th e s t at e ag en cy , b u t t he s tat e i t s el f (as u l t i m at e o wn er o f t h e bu i ld i n g ), h as

16a cau se of act i on ari s i n g o u t of d efect i v e c o n s t r u ct io n o f a b ui l d i n g fo r i t by a s t at e

ag en cy .”

Two reas o n s co m

p el t h e co n cl u si o n t h at t h e g en eral ru l e rem ai n s v i ab l e t o d ay

.

Fi rs t

, al t ho u gh th e ru le was m o s t recen t l y fo un d ap p l i cab l e u n d e r t h e L o u i s i an a

Co n s t i t u t i o n o f 1 9 2 1

, t h e rel ev an t wo rd i n g w as s t ream l i n ed i n th e p res en t

Co n s t i t u t i o n o f 1 9 7 4

, b u t rem ai n s s u bs t an t i al l y u n ch an g ed :

Th e A t t orn ey Gen eral

... s h al l a t t e n d t o , an d hav e ch arg e o f al l
l eg al m at t ers i n wh i ch t h e St at e h as an i n t eres t

, o r t o wh i ch t h e St at e i s

a p a rt y , wi t h p o w er an d au t h o ri t y t o in s t i t u t e an d p ro s ecu t e o r t o i n t erv en e i n an y an d al l s u i t s o r o t h er p ro ceed i n g s , ci v i l o r cri m in al

, as
t h ey m ay deem n eces s ary fo r th e as sert i o n o r pro t ect i o n o f t h e ri g h t s an d
i n t eres t s o f t he St at e.

La. Co n s t . 1 9 2 1 art

. VII, § 56

.

As n eces s ary fo r t h e as s ert i o n o r p ro tect i o n o f an y ri gh t o r i n t eres t

o f t h e s t at e, t h e at t o rn ey g en era l s h al l h av e au t h o ri t y (1 ) t o i n s t i t u t e,
p ro s ecu t e, o r i nt erv en e i n an y ci vi l act i on o r p ro ceed i n g

... .

La. Co n s t . 1 9 7 4 art

. IV, § 8

.

In d eed

, as reco u n ted by th e co o rd in at o r o f l eg al res earch fo r th e Co n s t i t u t i o n al

Co n v en ti o n o f 1 9 7 3

, t h ere was n o s u b s t a n t i v e ch an g e i n t en d ed fo r t he At t o rn ey

Gen eral ’ s p o wers in ci v i l cas es b et ween t h e Co n s t i t u t i o n o f 1 9 7 4 an d t h e Co n s t i t u t i o n

o f 1 9 21 :

Art i cl e IV, Sect i o n 8

, ... co n t in u es p ro v i s io n s fo r an at t o rn ey
g en eral el ect ed s t at ewi de fo r a fo u r-y ear t erm

. Li tt l e d is pu t e aro s e ov er
t h e p ro v i s i o n m a k i n g h i m “ t h e ch i ef leg al o ffi cer o f t h e s t at e” an d

co n t in u i n g h i s p owers i n ci vi l m at t ers , bu t m u ch co n t ro v ers y w as
g en erat ed b y p ro p o s al s es t ab l i s h i n g h is p owers i n cri m in al m at t ers

... . [Em p h as is ad d ed ; fo ot n o t e o m m i t ted .]

Lee Harg rav e, Th e J u d i ci ary A rt i cl e of t h e Lo u i s i an a Co n st it u t i o n o f 1 97 4

, 3 7 La. L.

Rev

. 76 5

, 8 3 1 (Sp ri ng 1 9 77 ). A s eco n d reas o n fo r u p h o l d i n g o u r l o n g s t an d i n g

ju ri s p ru den t i al i n t e r

p r et at i o n o f t h e co n s t i t u t i o n al p o wers o f t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral

,

aft er t h e en act m en t o f t h e p res en t co n s t i t u t io n , i s fo u nd i n t h i s ex p l an at i on :

17[C] o n s i st en t w i t h an o t her o f o u r wel l -s et t l ed ru l es o f i n t erp ret at i on , we

p res um e t h at t h e l eg i s l at u re was aware o f t h e i n t e r p ret at i o n th at h ad
b een g i v en t o t he co n st i t ut i o n al p ro v i s i o ns b y t h e ju ri s p ru den ce. Sta te, Depa rtm ent o f P ubl i c Sa fety a nd Co rrecti o ns , Offi ce o f Sta te Po l i ce, Ri v erbo a t Ga m i ng Di v i s i o n v. Lo ui s i a na Ri verb o a t Ga m i ng Co m m i s s i o n and Ho rs es ho e Enterta i nm ent

, 9 4-1 8 7 2

, 9 4 -1 9 14

, p

. 1 7 (La.5 / 2 2 / 95 ), 6 5 5 So .2 d 2 9 2

, 3 0 1 n.1 0 (reci t i n g th e ru l e t h at t ho s e wh o

en act l aws are p res u m ed t o act del i b erat el y an d wi t h fu ll k n owl ed g e o f

ex i s ti n g l aws o n t h e s a m e s u b ject

, wi th awaren es s o f co u rt cas es an d
wel l -es t ab l i s h ed p ri n ci p l es o f co n s tru ct i on , an d wi t h k n o w l ed g e of th e effect o f t h ei r act s an d a p u rp o s e i n v i ew).

Frug e v

. Bd. o f Trus tees o f Lo ui s i a na Sta te Em pl o yees ’ Ret. Sy s

. , 0 8 -1 27 0

, p

. 1 8

(La. 12 / 2 / 0 8 ), 6 So .3 d 12 4

, 13 6

. As i n Frug e , t h e l ack o f an i n t en d ed ch an g e in

m ean i n g o f t h e t ex t ju s t ifi es ap p l y i n g i n t h e p res en t d ay t h i s co u rt ’ s ju ri s p ru d en ce

i n t erp ret i n g an earl i er co ns t it u t i o n al p ro v i s i o n

. See i d

. , 0 8-1 2 7 0 at 1 9

, 6 So .3 d at 1 3 6.

“ Al t h o u g h we are bo u n d b y t h e wo rd s o f t h e s tat u tes an d t h e co n s t i t u t i on , as we h av e

n o t ed

, o n ce t h is co u rt h as ru l ed o n an i s s u e, we s h ou l d be ex t rem el y rel u ct an t to

ch an ge o u r p os i t i on , as b o t h t h e l eg is l at u re an d s o ci et y s h o u ld b e ab l e t o rel y o n t h e

fi nal it y of ou r p ro n ou n cem en t s

. St ab i l it y an d p red i ct ab i l it y i n t he law d em an d s u ch

a res u l t .” I

d

. , 0 8 -1 2 7 0 at 2 0, 6 So .3 d at 1 3 7

.

Hav i n g fo u n d t h e l o ng s t an d i n g i n t erp ret at i o n o f th e At t o rn ey Gen eral ’ s

co n st i t u t io n al au t h o ri t y rem ai n s v i ab l e, i t s ap p l i cat i o n i n t h e i n s t an t cas e i s ad d ressed

.

Th e g en eral ru l e p ro vi des t h at w h ere, as h ere, a go v ern m en t al en t it y h as t h e cap aci t y

t o s u e an d b e s u e d

, t h e A t t o rn ey Gen eral h as n o ri gh t o f act i on

. Th at d o es n o t

,

h o wev er, en d t h e i n q u iry

. T o al l g en eral ru l es th ere m ay b e ex cep t i o n s

. Th e

ju ri s p ru den ce o n t h e p owers o f t h e A t t orn ey Gen eral rel at i v e t o g ov ern m en t al en t i ti es

wi t h t h e cap aci t y t o s u e an d b e s ued h as p ro v i d ed e x a m p l e s o f ex cep t i o n s t o t h e

g en eral ru l e. “ [N] eg l ect o r refu s [al ] t o i n s t i tu t e su i t ” b y a g o v ern m en t al en t i t y

s t at u to ri l y au t h o ri zed t o b ri n g s u i t are t wo ex am p les t hat m a y j u s t i f

y th e At t o rn ey

Gen e r al h av in g a ri g h t o f act i o n t h at o t h erwi s e wo u l d s o l el y bel o n g t o t h e

18g o v ern m en t al en t i t y . See Do ucet , 1 4 So .2 d at 6 25 . In t h e reco rd h ere, t here are n o

al l eg at i o n s o f n eg l ect o r refu s al o n th e p art o f LDH t o fi l e su i t ag ai ns t Un i s y s

. Ag ai n,

t h e i n q u i ry

i s n o t at an en d b ecau s e t h e ju ri sp ru d en ce p l aced “ n eg lect o r refu s al ” as

m erel y two ex am

p l es wi th i n t h e cat eg o ry o f “ h i g h l y ex cep t i o nal ci rcu m s t an ces ” t h at

m ay ju s t i fy t h e At t o rn ey

Gen eral h av i n g a ri gh t o f act i on . See Do ucet , 1 4 So .2 d at

6 2 5 (q uo t i n g Tens a s Del ta La nd Co

. , 5 2 So . at 2 2 1 ).

Th e st at e has p l ead ed “ h i g h l y ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s tan ces ” i n t h e pres en t cas e.

A d e no vo rev i ew rev eal s t h e At t o rn ey G en eral ’ s p et i t i on i s rep l et e wi t h al l eg at i on s

o f Un i s y s p l a yi n g an es s en t i al ro l e i n t h e ad m i n i s trat i o n o f Lo u i s ian a’ s Med i cai d

p ro g ram an d al l eg at i o ns o f t h e s tat e m ai n t ai n i n g an i n t eres t i n t h e co nt ract wi th

Un i sy s t h ro u g h o n g o in g l eg i s l at i v e o v ers i g ht

. A rel at i v el y s m al l s am p l i n g fro m t h e

s t at e’ s t wen t y -p ag e p et i ti o n s u ffi ces :

1

. Fo r t h e l as t s ev e r a l d e c ad es , t he Defen d an t s h av e o perat ed as th e St at e’ s f i s cal i n t erm ed i ary an d p ro ces s ed p ay m en t s fo r m i l l i o n s o f

M ed i cai d p res cri p t i o n d ru g cl ai m s each y ear. ...

. . . .

7

. ... Th e M o l i na D efen d an t s h av e en g ag ed i n t h e bu s in es s o f o p erat i n g ,

m ai n t ai n i n g, i m

p l em en t i n g an d m an ag i n g t h e L o u i si an a Med i cai d

M an ag em en t In fo rm at i o n Sy s t em (“ LM M IS”) s inc e a t le a st M a y o f 2 010

... .

8

. ... Un i s y s Co rp o rat i o n h as en g ag ed i n th e b u s i n es s of o p erat i n g ,

m ai n t ai n i n g, i m

p l em en t in g an d m an ag in g t h e LM M IS s i n ce a t l e a s t
J an u ary o f 1 9 8 4

. ...

. . . .

1 0

. ... A d d i t io nal l y , t h e Defen d an t s p l ay an d / or p l ay ed an i m p o rt an t

ro l e i n ed ucat in g p ro v i d ers en ro l l ed i n Lo u i s i an a M ed icai d

.

. . . .

1 8

. ... Defen d an t s as s um ed o p erat i o n al l i ab i l i t y o f t h e LM M IS fo r th e Lo u i s i an a M ed i cai d p ro g ram i n ret urn fo r su b s t an t i al p ay m en t fro m th e St at e.

191 9

. Th e LM M IS i s t h e co re t o o l u s ed t o ad m i n i s t er t h e St at e’ s Med i cai d

rei m b u rs em en t p ay m en t s

... . Th e Defen d an t s ’ ro l e, as t h e St at e’ s fi s cal

ag en t fo r t h e p ro ces s i n g o f M ed i cai d rei m bu rs em en t s , i s t o as s i s t th e St at e i n m eet i n g i t s heal t h care ad m in i s t rat io n go al s , i n cl u di n g red u ci n g

co s t s b y ad ap ti n g t h e LM M IS t o t h e cu rren t real i t i es an d ch an g es wi t h i n M ed i cai d

, i n cl u d i n g l eg al l y req u i red ch an g es

.

2 0

. At al l t i m es rel ev an t t o t h i s act i o n , t h e Defen d an t s were

co n t ract u al l y o b l i gat ed to creat e an d i m p l e m en t d es i g n ch an g es t o th e LM M IS i n acco rd an ce w i th Lo ui s i an a’ s s t at ut o ry an d ad m in i s t rat iv e fo rm u l as t h at co m

p l y wi t h St at e an d fed eral m an d at es

. ...

. . . .

2 6

. [T] h e St at e re qu es t ed t hat t he Defen d an t s ch an g e t h e co m p u t er
p ro g ram an d / o r p aram et ers t h e Defen dan ts u s ed t o p ro ces s rei m b u r s e m en t s fo r p res cri pt i on d ru g s t o refl ect t h e m o s t recen t rei m b u rs em en t fo rm

u la. ...

2 7

. At al l t i m es rel ev an t t o t h i s act i o n , t h e Defen d an t s were

co n t ract u al l y an d l eg al l y res p o n si bl e fo r creat i n g , d es i gn i n g , an d
i m p l em en t i n g al l o f th e ab o v e rei m b u r s e m e n t fo rm

u l a ch an g es to th e LM M IS t h at co m

p l y wi t h St a t e a n d fed eral m an d at es , i n o rd er t o

accu rat el y p ro ces s Lo u i s i an a Med i cai d's p h arm acy p ro v i d er cl ai m s fo r rei m b u rs em en t i n acco rd an ce wi t h L o u i s i an a's s t at u t ory an d
ad m i n i s trat iv e fo rm

u l as

. ...

. . . .

2 9

. Th e St at e’ s co n t ract wi t h t he Defen d an t s ex p res s l y in co rp o rat ed th e
t erm s o f th e St at e’ s So l i ci t at i o n fo r Pro p o s al (“ SFP”). A s p a r t o f th e

co n t ract

, th e Defen d an t s warran t ed t hat t hey wo u ld co m p ly " w i t h a l l

req u irem en ts o f t h e S F P an d al l St at e an d Fed eral reg u l at i o ns as t h ey

ex i s t at t h e t i m e o f t h e Co n t ract an d as s ub s eq u en t l y am en ded .” ...

3 0 . ... Th e SFP ex p l ai ns t h at :

... LM M IS i s o p erat ed i n acco rd an ce wi th ap pl i cab l e St at e an d Fed eral p o li ci es as t h ey rel at e t o th e ed i ti n g an d pay m en t o f M ed i cai d cl ai m s

. A s a

res u l t

, i t i s i m

p o rt an t t h at t he referen ce fi l e s a re
pro m ptl y a nd a ccur a t e l y upda ted to refl ect

a ppro v ed cha ng es a nd po l i ci es

.

...

. . . .

203 2

. ... T h e Defen d an t s a re fu rt her req u i red t o “ m ai n t ai n fu l l

, cu rren t

a n d d e t ai l ed k n o w l ed g e o f p u b l i s hed Fed eral an d St at e l eg i s lat i o n , reg u lat i o n s , a n d g u i d el in es p ert i nen t t o d i s ch arg in g [t h e Defen d an t s ’ ]

res p on s i b i l i t ies as t h e fi s cal i n t erm ed i ary .”

As refl ect ed in t hes e q u o t ed al l eg at i o ns , U n i s y s was req u i red t o m on i t o r an d

t o ad ju s t LM M IS n o t o n l y

t o LDH’ s an d t h e fed eral g ov ern m en t ’ s reg u l at i o n s , b ut

al s o to t h e s t at e’ s l eg is l at i ve ov ers i g ht

. It i s v i rt u al l y i m p o s s i b l e t o s et fo rt h p reci s e

g u i d el i n es fo r wh en t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral h as pl ead ed “ h i g h l y ex cep t i o n al

ci rcu m s t an ces ” su ffi ci en t t o s t at e a ri g h t of act i o n wh en an o t h er g o v ern m en t al en t i t y

h as cap aci t y

t o s u e an d b e s u ed reg ard i n g a co n t ract . Th i s i s n eces s ari l y a cas e-b y

cas e d et erm i n at io n . Th at s ai d

, wh ere, as h ere, t h e cau s es o f act i on are p rem i s ed o n

a co n t ract t o p erfo rm g o vern m en t al fu n ct i on s , th e m o re t h e p et i t i o n refl ect s t h at t h e

s t at e rem ai n s i nv o l v ed i n t h e co n t ract b y p ro v i d i n g on g o i n g leg i s l at iv e ov ers i g h t

, t h e

m o re l i k el y

“ h i g hl y ex cep t i on al ci rcu m st an ces ” m ay b e fo u n d

.

Th i s ap p ro a c h o f ev al u at i n g a pet i ti o n ’ s al l eg at i o n s o f o n g o i ng l eg i s l at i v e

o v ers i g h t as a m eas u re o f “ h i g h l y ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s tan ces ” i s co n s i s t en t wi t h t h i s

co u rt ’ s s em i n al d eci si o n in Tens a s Del t a L a n d C o

. Th e Tens a s D el ta La nd Co

.

co u rt reco g n i zed t h e l eg is l at u re ex ert ed a b as el i n e co n t ro l o v er al l s t at e co rp o rat i o n s ,

i n a sm u ch as t h e l eg i s l at u re “ m ad e t hem

, an d can at an y ti m e ab o l i s h ” s t a t e

co rp o rat i o ns , b u t ne v e r t h e l es s reco g n i zed th e ex cep ti o n fo r th e at t o rn ey g en eral to

h av e a ri gh t o f act i o n u n der “ h i g h l y ex cep t io n al ci rcu m s t an ces

. ” Id

. , 5 2 So

. at 2 2 1.

T he r e f or e, d rawi n g fro m Tens a s Del ta La nd Co

. , t hi s co urt fi n d s “ h i g h ly ex cep t iona l

ci rcu m s t an ces ” can n o t a r i s e fro m t h e b as el i n e ab i l i t y o f t h e l eg i s l at u re t o creat e o r

ab o li s h cert ai n g o vern m en t al en t i t i es

. No r d o es t h is co u rt fi n d h ere “ h i g h l y

ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s t an ces ” ari s e fro m ro u t i n e l eg i s l at i v e o v ers i g h t

, wh i ch m ay s ai d

t o ex i s t fro m t h e l eg i s l at u re’ s s t at u t o ry fram ewo rk i n effect at t h e t i m e a co n t ract i s

21co n fect ed

. Rat her, t h e p et i t i o n ’ s al l eg at io n s t h at a co n t ract o r m us t o b s e r v e an d

co n fo rm t o a b ro ad

, y et o ft en -ch an g i n g l eg i s l at i v e l an ds cap e, here ri s e t o t he l ev el o f

“ h i gh l y ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s t an ces ” s u ffi ci en t t o ju s t ify t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral h av i n g

a ri g h t o f act i o n

.

Un i s y s , i n i t s b ri ef, co n t en d s t h at al l o w i n g t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral t o h av e a ri g ht

o f act i o n o n t h e s t ren g t h o f th e al l eg at i o ns i n th e p et it i o n wo u l d es sen t i al l y co n d o n e

“ t h e At to rn ey G en eral ’ s

... un warran t ed at tem pt t o g rab p o wer ri gh t fu ll y bel o n g i n g

s o l el y t o L DH.” W e do n o t s u b s cri be t o t h i s cy n i cal vi ew, b ut no t h i n g i n t hi s o p i n i o n

s h o u ld b e c o n s t r u e d as g i v i n g t h e At to rn ey Gen eral o r h i s rep res en t at i v es cart e

b l an ch e t o wi t h s t an d an ex cep t i o n o f n o ri g h t o f a c t i o n b y m an u fact u ri ng h i g h l y

ex cep t i o n al cl ai m s i n fu t u re cas es

. In d eed

, o u r h o ld i ng h ere t h at t h e s t at e h as p l ead ed

“ h i gh l y ex cep t i on al ci r c u m s t a n ces ” g reat l y res t s on a fi n d i ng t h at t he s t at e’ s

al l eg at i o n s o f Un i sy s ’ act i vi t i es are al l eg at i o n s t h at are reco g n izab l e– o n t h ei r face– as

act i vi t i es i n t eg ral to g o v ern m en t al fu n ct i o n s

. See La. C.C.P. art

. 9 3 1 (“ ev i d en ce m ay

b e i n tro d u ced t o s u p p o rt o r co nt ro v ert ” an ex cep t i on of n o ri gh t o f act i o n , o nl y “ wh en

t h e gro u n d s t hereo f d o n o t ap p ear fro m t h e p et i t io n ”). Th at s ai d

, b u t wi t h o ut

ex p res s i n g an y o p in i o n w h at s o ev er o n t h e m eri t s of t he al l eg at i o n s reg ard in g Un i s y s ’

i n v o l v em en t i n Lo u i s i an a’ s M e d i cai d p ro g ram , i t i s a s t rai g h t fo rward m at t er to

co m p are t h e p et i t io n’ s al l eg at i o n s t o g o v ern m en tal fu n ct i o n s des cri b ed b y s t at e an d

fed eral l aw. “ As req u i red by fed eral l aw, s ee 4 2 C.F.R. § 4 3 1 .1 0

, Lo u i s i an a l aw v es t s

LDH as t h e s o le ag en cy au t h o ri zed by l aw t o a d m i n i s ter t h e St at e’ s Med i cai d

p ro g ram

. S

ee L a. R.S. 3 6 :2 5 4 (A)(6 )(a) an d (D)(1 )(a)(i ).” In deed

, t h es e ci t at i o n s o f

g o v ern m en t al f

u n c t i o n s h av e b een q uo t ed d i rect ly fro m Un i s y s ’ b ri ef t o t h i s co u rt

,

an d ap p l y t o t h e al l eg at io n s of th e pet i t i o n

. Si g n ifi can t l y , fo r t hi s co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g t h at

“ h i gh l y ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s t an ces ” b ri n g t h i s m at t er wi t h i n th e At t o rn ey Gen eral ’ s

22p u rv iew, t h e g o v ern m en tal fu n ct i o n s d es cri b ed i n t h e p et i t i o n a r e highly reg u l at ed n ot

o n l y b y Lo u is i an a l aw b u t al s o b y fed eral l aw.

As g ro u n ds f

o r g r a n t i n g Un i s y s ’ ex cep t i on o f n o ri g h t o f act i o n , t h e co u rt

b el o w rel i ed on it s earl i er deci s i o n i n Abbo tt La bo ra to ri es I nc.

. H o wev er, Abbo tt

La bo ra to ri es , I nc. is d i s t i n g ui sh ab l e b ecau s e t h ere t h e s tat e as s ert ed cau s es o f act i o n

b as ed o n t h e al l eg at i o n t h at “ ph arm aceu t i cal m an ufact urers , di s t ri b u to rs , m ark et ers ,

an d s el l ers

... h ad en g ag ed in an u n l awfu l an d d ecep t iv e s ch em e t o recei v e Med i cai d

p ay m en t s fo r d ru gs th at w ere n o t el i gi b l e fo r M ed i cai d p ay m en t s .” Abbo tt

La bo ra to ri es I nc. , 1 5 -1 6 2 6 at 3

- 4

, 2 0 8 S o

. 3 d at 3 86 (em p h as i s ad d ed ). Here, in

co n tras t

, t h e s t at e al l eg es Un i s y s was res po n s i b l e i n i t s ro le as t h e st at e’ s “ fi s cal

i n t erm ed i ary ” i n t h e M ed i caid pr ogr a m f o r i m pr ope r ly pa

y i n g fo r d ru g rei m

b u rs em en t

cl ai m s

.

Nota bly

, the pa rt i es hav e p res en t ed

, at great len g t h

, t h ei r v as t l y d i v erg en t v iews

o n t h e ex t en t t o w h i ch t h e s t at e, as d i s t i n ct fro m LDH, i s a p a r t y t o t h e LM M IS

co n tract s. It i s u n n eces s ary fo r t h i s co u rt t o res o l v e t h at d i sp u te t o as cert ai n t h at t h e

s t at e t h ro u gh t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral has a ri g h t o f act i o n , g i v en th e al l eg at i o n s o f

Un i sy s ’ i n v o lv em en t wi t h g o v ern m en t al fu n ct i o n s

. Th erefo re, t h i s co urt ex p res s es

n o vi ew o n wh et h er t h e st at e i s , i t s el f, a p art y t o th e co n t ract an d

, li k ewi s e, ex p res s es

n o v i ew o n t h e rel at ed arg u m en t b ro u g h t b y t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral t h at t he u s e o f s t at e

g en eral fu n d s ju s t i fi es t h e s t at e h av i n g a ri gh t o f act i o n

.

CONCLUSI ON

LDH h as th e s t at u t o r i l y -co n ferred cap aci t y to s u e an d b e s u ed

. See La. R.S.

3 6 : 2 5 1 (A). Th e At t o rn ey Gen eral i s co n st i t u t i o n al l y au t h o ri zed “ [a] s n eces s ary ” to

b ri n g ci vi l l aws u i t s o n b e h a l f o f t h e s t at e. See La. Co ns t

. 1 97 4 art

. IV, § 8

. Pri o r

ju ri s p ru den ce of t h i s co u rt

, fo rm u l at ed u n d er earl i er s t at e co n s t i t u t i o n s wi t h l an g u ag e

23s u b s t an t i vel y ret ai n ed i n t h e cu rren t co n s t i t u t io n , h o l d s t hat i n s u ch a s i t u at i o n , as a

g en eral ru l e, o nl y t he go vern m en t al ag en cy wi t h t h e cap aci t y t o s u e an d b e s u ed h as

a ri g h t o f act i o n

. An ex cep t i o n to t h at g en eral ru le ex i s t s f o r “ h ig h ly ex cep t i o n al

ci rcu m s t an ces

. ”

Ou r ju ri sp ru d en t i al g en eral ru l e an d i t s ex cep t io n rem ai n v i ab le un d er t o d ay ’ s

co n st i t u t io n al t erm i n o lo g y au t h o ri zi n g t h e At t o rn ey Gen er a l t o fi l e s u i t s “ [a] s

n eces s ary .” La. Co n s t

. 1 9 7 4 art

. IV, § 8

. St at ed s im pl y , g i v en t h at LDH i s s t at u t o ri l y

au t h o ri zed t o s u e an d b e s u ed

, i t o n l y beco m es “ n eces s ary ” fo r t h e At t o rn ey Gen eral

t o fi l e s u it

– rel at i n g t o p ro g ram s fo r wh i ch LDH co u l d fi l e t h e l aws u i t

– u n der “ h i g h l y

ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s t an ces .” Bas ed on t h e p l ead i ng s , s u ch ci rcu m s t an ces h av e b een

i d en t i fi ed i n t h i s cas e. Sp eci fi cal l y , t he At t o rn ey Gen eral o n b eh al f o f t h e s t at e h as

a ri g h t o f act i o n to b ri n g a l aws u i t ag ai n s t a p ri v at e en t i t y t h a t h a s al l eg ed l y

c o n t r a c t ed t o perfo rm g o v ern m en t al fu n ct i o n s es s en t i al t o a pro g ram g o vern ed b y

b o t h s t a t e an d fed eral l aw wh ere p erfo rm an ce o f t h e co nt ract is s u b ject t o o n g o i n g

l eg i s lat i v e o v ers i gh t

.

Th e co n t rary d eci s i o n o f t h e ap p el l at e co u rt i s h ereb y v acat ed

, an d t h i s m at t er

i s rem an d ed t o t h e d i st ri ct co u rt fo r fu rt h er pro ceed i n g s co n s i s t en t wi t h t h i s o p i n i o n.

VACATED; REMANDED.

241 05/08/19

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2018

- CC

- 1768

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, EX REL. JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL

VERSUS

MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC; MOLINA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, L.L.C. D/B/A MOLINA MEDICAID SOLUTIONS; PARAMAX SYSTEMS CORPORATION; AND
UNISYS CORPORATION

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

JOHNSON
, Chief Justice
, additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

I agree with the majority that the Attorney General has a right to prosecute

this lawsuit , but I find the majority opinion is too narrowly drawn

.

In my view, the fact that LDH has a right of action d oes not preclude the state

from also having a right of action. Although LDH is statutorily defined as “a body

corporate wi th the power to sue and be sued ” by La. R.S

. 36:251

, La. Const. art. IV,

§ 8 gives the Attorney General the power to institute a civ i l action “as necessary for

the assertion or protection of any right or interest of the state.” LDH is an agency of

the state, authorized to act on behalf of the state to carry out certain duties. LDH is

the state agency contracted to administer the Medica id program. However, the state

has not abdicated its power to bring a claim to protect the state’s interests in this

case. It is clear the state is the real party in interest under the contract. It is the state

that suffers damages if the contract is breac hed and funds are misspent , as the state

is the source of funding and the party responsible to the federal government for

federal funds. I find no authority to give LDH the sole right to judicially pursue the

claims alleged in the petition. Unquestionably, t he state has the right to recover2 overpayments of the s tate’s money and federal money for which t h e state has fiscal

liability. Thus, the court of appeal opinion is properly vacated.05/08/19

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2018

- CC

- 1768

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, EX REL. JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL

VERSUS

MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC; MOLINA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, L.L.C. D/B/A MOLINA MEDICAID SOLUTIONS; PARAMAX SYSTEMS CORPORATION; AND
UNISYS CORPORATION

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

GUIDRY, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice

Johnson.05/08/19

S UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2018

- CC

- 1768

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, EX REL. JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL

VE RSUS

MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC; MOLINA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, L.L.C. D/B/A MOLINA MEDICAID SOLUTIONS; PARAMAX SYSTEMS CORPORATION; AND
UNISYS CORPORATION

O N WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

GEN OVESE, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice

Johnson.