Case Name: Sandra POCHÉ v. HUEY P. LONG MEDICAL CENTER
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2008-05-21
Citations: 983 So. 2d 986
Docket Number: No. 08-311
Parties: Sandra POCHÉ v. HUEY P. LONG MEDICAL CENTER.
Judges: Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, OSWALD A. DECUIR, and BILLY H. EZELL, Judges.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 983
Pages: 986–988

Head Matter:
Sandra POCHÉ v. HUEY P. LONG MEDICAL CENTER.
No. 08-311.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
May 21, 2008.
Sandra Poché Marksville, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant In Proper Person.
Leanne Broussard, State of Louisiana, Alexandria, LA, for Defendant/Appellee Huey P. Long Medical Center.
Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, OSWALD A. DECUIR, and BILLY H. EZELL, Judges.

Opinion:
EZELL, Judge.
1 t This court, sua sponte, issued a rule for the plaintiff-appellant, Sandra Poché, to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal in the above captioned case should not be dismissed as having been taken prematurely. For the reasons given below, we dismiss the appeal.
The trial court signed a judgment on February 28, 2008, which dismissed plaintiff's claim for wage benefits as having prescribed. The February 28, 2008 judgment also stated that plaintiffs "claim for medical benefits is not affected by this judgment." Notice of the signing of judgment was sent on February 29, 2008. The plaintiff then filed a request for an appeal from this judgment on March 4, 2008. The trial court signed an order of appeal, and the record in this case was lodged in this court. Upon the lodging of the record, this court issued the instant rule for the plaintiff to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken prematurely. The plaintiff has not filed a brief in response to this court's rule.
We find that the appeal in this case must be dismissed because La.Code Civ.P. art.1915 has been held to be inapplicable to workers' compensation cases. The judgment of which an appeal is being sought clearly states that there are issues not yet resolved.
In Rhodes v. Lewis, 2001-1989 (La.5/14/02), 817 So.2d 64, the supreme court held that La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A)(1) and (5) were inapplicable to workers' compensation suits. In that instance, two of three defendants had been dismissed from the suit. Even at the risk of having trial against less than all parties who might ultimately be held answerable, the supreme court declined to sanction the use of Article 1915 in workers' compensation actions.
| ^Likewise, this court in Evergreen Presbyterian Minist. v. Wallace, 2005-1343 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 759, ordered the dismissal of appeals which had been filed by both sides. In dismissing the appeals from rulings that the claimant was entitled to supplemental earnings benefits, but that the claimant was not temporarily and totally disabled nor totally and permanently disabled, as well as other rulings deciding other issues in the case, this court stated:
The law is clear, and we are bound to follow the supreme court's dictates, that a piecemeal appeal is not permissible in a workers' compensation case. The judgment of the Office of Workers' Compensation clearly establishes that issue of penalties and attorney fees is yet to be decided by it. As the second circuit noted in Gajeske v. Integrated Electrical Services, Inc., 37,777 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/29/03), 859 So.2d 896, in footnote four (iciting Rhodes, 817 So.2d 64), a piecemeal appeal is not permissible when there are still issues involving penalties and attorney fees yet to determined. Until all issues have been decided in this case, this appeal is premature.
Evergreen Presbyterian Minist., 926 So.2d at 763. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the instant appeal at plaintiffs cost.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
COOKS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.