Case Name: CHALMETTE GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. v. William A. CHERRY et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1980-12-15
Citations: 398 So. 2d 599
Docket Number: No. 13824
Parties: CHALMETTE GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. v. William A. CHERRY et al.
Judges: Before COVINGTON, CHIASSON and LEAR, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 398
Pages: 599–602

Head Matter:
CHALMETTE GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. v. William A. CHERRY et al.
No. 13824.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1980.
On Rehearing March 16, 1981.
Writ Denied May 1, 1981.
Jonathan C. Harris, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant Chalmette General Hospital, Inc.
Steven R. Giglio, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees William A. Cherry and Dept, of Health & Human Resources.
Before COVINGTON, CHIASSON and LEAR, JJ.

Opinion:
COVINGTON, Judge.
Chalmette General Hospital, Inc., plaintiff, has appealed the judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendants, William A. Cherry and The Department of Health and Human Resources, which maintained their preemptory exceptions of res judicata, estoppel by judgment and no right of action. 'The judgment also assessed the plaintiff with Cherry's attorney's fees in the amount of $500, and ordered the plaintiff to post a cost bond. Defendants answered the appeal, seeking an increase in the attorney's fees.
The plaintiff brought this action seeking an alternative writ of mandamus ordering William A. Cherry, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources, to hold a hearing on a certificate of need issued to the St. Bernard General Hospital, Inc., a competitor hospital. The plaintiff's action was met by peremptory exceptions, including that of res judicata. The record shows that the parties to the instant suit were parties in a prior action in which the plaintiff sought, by way of reconvention, mandamus and injunctive relief, entitled "St. Bernard General Hospital, Inc. versus Chalmette General Hospital, Inc., et al.", No. 213,991 on the docket of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, before the Honorable Lewis S. Doherty, III, Judge. The Department was specifically named as a party defendant in Chalmette's reconventional demand. The same factual claims and same issues were raised in both actions. In the first action, Judge Doherty ruled:
"The Court has found no statute or Louisiana case, and none has been cited to it, in which a business competitor was held to have a right of action to mandamus or enjoin a state agency relative to a certificate of need issued to another entity."
In view of this ruling by Judge Doherty, the trial court in the instant action said:
"The Court is of the opinion that the defendant has correctly stated that the action herein has already been judicially decided in Judge Doherty's case."
We agree.
Matters actually litigated and finally adjudged are presumed to be correct; they ought not be contradicted in subsequent lawsuits. It is evident from the judgment in the first action that the matter in the instant action has already been adjudged because the three identities, i. e., identity of parties, identity of cause and identity of the thing demanded, are present. When these three identities are present, Article 2286 of the Civil Code controls. See Dixon, Booksh & Zimmering, Res Judicata in Louisiana Since Hope v. Madison, 51 Tul.L.Rev. 611 (1977).
A case in point is Bowers v. Jones-Journet, 316 So.2d 18 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1975). The holding in Bowers v. Jones-Journet was predicated upon the essential elements of res judicata as stated in LSA-C.C. art. 2286. In Bowers, the Court upheld res judicata finding that "both judgments were obtained on the basis of the same suit between the same parties, the identical unamended pleadings, without any additional action in the suit between judgments, and upon the same evidence." That would be the effect of this second action by Chalmette Hospital against the Department and its Secretary. By styling this action "Petition for Mandamus or, Alternatively, Judicial Review", instead of calling it a suit for injunctive relief and mandamus, does not alter the fact that the three identities are present. Where the issue has already been judicially determined, a party can not be permitted to manipulate court proceedings to his own convenience in order to foist two separate trials of identical issues upon the courts.
A comparison of suit number 213,991 in Judge Doherty's court with suit number 230,977 in Judge Alford's court reveals positively that the criteria of res judicata have been met.
In view of our sustaining the exception of res judicata, it is not necessary that we consider the other peremptory exceptions ruled upon by the court below. The plaintiff's action is dismissed.
We next consider the appellees' request for an increase in attorney's fees. In answering this appeal, defendants request an increase in those fees to $1,000.00 as compensation for the effort in prosecuting this appeal. Such an increase in attorney's fees for services rendered on appeal is usually awarded when the party appealing obtains no relief on appeal and the other party requests it in accordance with proper appel late procedure. The basis for the award is that the litigant who was successful at the trial level has had to incur additional expenses, which would not otherwise be necessary, in order to protect his rights. See Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Lertrge (Lartigue), 367 So.2d 1230 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1979); Horn v. Vancouver Plywood Company, 322 So.2d 816 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1975).
Therefore, we increase the attorney's fees from $500.00 to $1,000.00 and amend the judgment in this respect. As amended, the judgment is affirmed at appellant's cost.
AMENDED AND AFFIRMED.