Court Opinion

ID: 20258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:32:36+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:29.793342
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                        _______________________

                              No.99-30559
                        _______________________

CATHY DEAN SPRINGER, As natural tutrix on behalf of her minor
children, Gregory Paul Dean, Jr., and Jessica Marie Dean,

                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                  versus

K-MART CORPORATION,

                                                      Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                    Lower Court No. 97-CV-3293-C
_________________________________________________________________
                            March 3, 2000

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

           Having considered this appeal in light of the briefs and

pertinent Louisiana authorities, we affirm for essentially the

reasons stated by the district court.         The appellants’ claim does

not fit within the narrow exception to exclusivity of the Louisiana

Worker’s compensation regime identified by the Louisiana Supreme

Court in Weber v. State, 635 So. 2d 188 (La. 1994).          See also Kelly

v. CNA Ins. Co., 729 So. 2d 1033 (La. 1999).         We also find no basis

for a claim predicated on Stevens v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 688

     *
            Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
So.2d 668 (La. App. 1997), because appellants sought recovery for

wrongful death, not for a worsening of the decedent’s condition.

Further,   Kelly   appears   to   undermine   Stevens.   Appellants’

constitutional arguments are meritless.

           AFFIRMED.