Case Name: Nathaniel DOWL, Jr., Individually and as Administrator of the Succession of Nathaniel Dowl, Sr. v. REDI CARE HOME HEALTH ASSOCIATION d/b/a Redi Care/Primary Medical Group and the XYZ Insurance Company; Nathaniel Dowl, Jr. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company and Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2004-12-22
Citations: 917 So. 2d 434
Docket Number: Nos. 2004-CA-1182, 2004-CA-1183
Parties: Nathaniel DOWL, Jr., Individually and as Administrator of the Succession of Nathaniel Dowl, Sr. v. REDI CARE HOME HEALTH ASSOCIATION d/b/a Redi Care/Primary Medical Group and the XYZ Insurance Company. Nathaniel Dowl, Jr. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company and Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund.
Judges: Court composed of Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS Jr., Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO Jr.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 917
Pages: 434–443

Head Matter:
Nathaniel DOWL, Jr., Individually and as Administrator of the Succession of Nathaniel Dowl, Sr. v. REDI CARE HOME HEALTH ASSOCIATION d/b/a Redi Care/Primary Medical Group and the XYZ Insurance Company. Nathaniel Dowl, Jr. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company and Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund.
Nos. 2004-CA-1182, 2004-CA-1183.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Dec. 22, 2004.
Opinion Vacating Dismissal Order on Rehearing April 6, 2005.
Writ Denied Nov. 28, 2005.
Nathaniel Dowl, Jr., New Orleans, LA, in Proper Person, Plaintiff/Appellant.
Ernest L. O’Bannon, David E. Walle, Christopher M. G’sell, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O’Bannon, New Orleans, LA, for Scottsdale Insurance Company.
James C. Young, Heather M. Valliant, Corinne A. Morrison, Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund and the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board.
Court composed of Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS Jr., Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO Jr.

Opinion:
hTERRI F. LOVE, Judge.
This appeal is from a hearing held on April 16, 2004 and judgment rendered on May 17, 2004. On May 20, 2004, Nathaniel Dowl Jr., appellant, filed and was granted an order for devolutive appeal. However, on April 23, 2004, Mr. Dowl filed a motion styled, "Motion to Reopen Testimony," which the trial court re-designated as a motion for new trial and set the matter for hearing on June 18, 2004. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2087(D) states:
An order of appeal is premature if granted before the court disposes of all timely filed motions for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The order becomes effective upon the denial of such motion.
On May 20, 2004, when the trial court granted the order for devolutive appeal, the appeal was premature, because of the outstanding Motion for New Trial. This court issued an order to appellant, to show why the appeal should not be dismissed as premature and no evidence was presented by appellant. The record is devoid of any evidence of the trial court's disposition on the Motion for New Trial. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as premature.
DISMISSED.
CANNIZZARO, J., dissents with reasons.
. A Motion for New Trial is a final judgment, and as a final judgment it must be signed by the judge ruling on it; pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 1911. "No appeal may be taken from a final judgment until this requirement has been fulfilled." LSA-C.C.P. art. 1911.