text:
    Kenneth CLOUD v. ACADIAN AMBULANCE AND AIR MED SERVICES, INC.
    No. 2008-CC-0121.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Air Med Services, Inc.; Acadian Ambulance Service Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Allen, 33rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C 2006-370; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 07-01325.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    CLK COMPANY, L.L.C. v. CXY ENERGY, INC.
    No. 2008-C-0140.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re CXY Energy Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 72,370; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-834.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Johnnie ALLEN.
    No. 2008-KK-0147.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Allen, Johnnie; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 20723; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KW 2159.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jeremy PETERS.
    No. 2008-KK-0148.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Peters, Jeremy; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 19730, 84454, 89200, 89290; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KW 2138.

Denied.


text:
    Jania MARTIN and James Wesley v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak and Birmingham Steel Corporation.
    No. 2008-C-0149.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Wesley, James; Martin, Jania et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2000-3851; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-CA-1495.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.

KIMBALL, J., would grant.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Peggie SABA and Ronald Saba v. HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING SYSTEMS, LTD.
    No. 2008-C-0150.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Saba, Peggie et al.; Saba, Ronald; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2004-13816; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0916.

Denied.


text:
    Pinckney A. WOOD (President, Coalition of Louisiana Animal Advocates) v. Bob DEL GIORNO, WWL AM, and Sinclair Communications, Inc.
    No. 2008-C-0151.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Wood, Pinckney; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 1998-18177; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-CA-1612.

Denied.


text:
    DOUCETTE & ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS, INC. v. Windsor DENNIS.
    No. 2008-CC-0152.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Dennis, Windsor; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 98-11765; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-C-0861.

Denied.


text:
    Harold John WAHLBORG v. Anne Sherman WAHLBORG.
    No. 2008-C-0154.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Wahlborg, Anne Sherman; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Family Court, No. 59,078; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0157.

Denied.


text:
    C.R. HUMPHREYS GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC. v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM and Gossen-Gasaway-Holloway, Ltd.
    No. 2008-C-0166.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Gossen-Gasaway-Holloway, Ltd.; Tangipahoa Parish School System; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2002-002690; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0993.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Dominic J. DISTEFANO v. BERRYTOWN PRODUCE, LLC and Kemp Richardson.
    No. 2008-C-0167.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Distefano, Dominic J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-003584; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CA 2216.

Denied.


text:
    Debra A.F. MILLS, et al. v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., et al.
    No. 2008-CC-0168.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re State of Louisiana; Department of Transportation & Development; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 102-369, 102-208; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-C-0911.

Denied.


text:
    Emmett WORLEY v. TOWN OF BRUSLY.
    No. 2008-C-0170.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Brusly Town of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District # 05, No. 05-00462; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0572.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Twan SCOTT v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
    No. 2008-CC-0173.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Wal Mart Louisiana LLC; Wal Mart Stores Inc. et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 79549; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 07-01202.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-2 v. Sarah Richards BUCK Sarah Richard Buck v. Washington Parish Sheriff's Department, Aubrey Jones and Civil Deputy.
    No. 2008-C-0177.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Buck, Sarah Richards; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 90,449, 92,799; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2007-CA-0351, 2007-CA-0352.

Denied.


text:
    Todd B. BORDERS v. Sheriff J. Austin DANIEL and Deputy Sheriff Michael Johnson.
    No. 2008-C-0182.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Borders, Todd B.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 17,712; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0340.

Denied.


text:
    Ivory W. JOHNSON v. HARMONY, L.L.C.
    No. 2008-C-0183.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Johnson, Ivory W.; Osborne, Milton Jr.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 05, No. 03-02773; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0994.

Denied.


text:
    Antoinette M. RIDER v. Kevin AMBEAU, Sr., George Grace, Sr., and the City of St. Gabriel.
    No. 2008-C-0184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Grace, George Sr.; St. Gabriel, City of; Ambeau, Kevin Sr. et ah; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 61130; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0681.

Denied.


text:
    Edgar J. DUHON, III, Cyd Marie Duhon, and on Behalf of his Minor Children, Tyler Duhon and Kayla Duhon v. UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, R&B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc. and Curtis Bailey.
    No. 2008-C-0186.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Assoc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 107,803; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0836.

Denied.


text:
    CLK COMPANY, L.L.C. v. CXY ENERGY, INC.
    No. 2008-C-0207.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re CLK Company L.L.C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 72,370; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-834.

Denied.


text:
    CITY OF PINEVILLE v. Gregory AYMOND.
    No. 2008-CC-0267.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Aymond, Gregory; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 226,484; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 07-01169.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant and remand to Court of Appeal.

KNOLL, J., would grant and remand to Court of Appeal.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert DAVIS.
    No. 2008-KH-0422.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Davis, Robert; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 09-07-0001; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KW 1775.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald M. LELEAUX, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-0423.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Leleaux, Ronald M. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 98-M0958, 98-M0552, 98-M2464; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 42256-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony BELL.
    No. 2008-KH-0429.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Bell, Anthony; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 05-06-0751.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Oscar TUREAUD.
    No. 2008-KH-0445.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Tureaud, Oscar; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 472-510; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-1531.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Clide PAYNE, Jr.
    No. 2008-KH-0446.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Payne, Clide Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 05-00013.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry DONAHUE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-0038.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 2008.
   In re Donahue, Larry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 271-682.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on an application for post-conviction relief and motion to correct an illegal sentence filed in 2007 prior to June 24. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the pleadings. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleadings which are herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Henri C. BROADWAY v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KP-0586.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2008.
   In re Broadway, Henri; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2-94-1720.

Writ dismissed. This motion is moot because the trial court has acted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James LANGENDORFER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1975.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 18, 2008.
   In re Langendorfer, James; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 110,345.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on or about May 30, 2007. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleading which is herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Daniel TAPIA.
    No. 2008-KK-0546.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 19, 2008.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 439-251; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-0079.

Denied.


text:
    In the Interest of L.H.
    No. 2008-CJ-0552.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 19, 2008.
   In re L.H. Interest of; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 7161JJ; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CW 2401.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael MOORE.
    No. 2008-KK-0593.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 19, 2008.
   In re Moore, Michael; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 473-710; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-0129.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael WEARY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KP-1152.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 15922.

Writ Granted; case remanded. The district court’s judgment denying relator’s pro se application for post-conviction relief is vacated, and the district court is directed to appoint the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, through its director, Gary P. Clements, as counsel for relator, and to give counsel reasonable opportunity to prepare and litigate expeditiously a supplemental application for post-conviction relief. See State ex rel. Hampton v. State, 00-2523 (La. 8/31/01), 795 So.2d 1198.

TRAYLOR, J., would deny.

KNOLL, J., would deny.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James CHARGOIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1211.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Chargois, James; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 96-0036; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KM 07-00280.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring relator’s recusal motion, which was scheduled for a hearing on September 29, 2006, to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James THOMAS, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1341.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Thomas, James Sr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 14749; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 1316.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion to correct an illegal sentence and application for writ of habeas corpus filed on August 25, 2005. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment(s). A copy of the applications are attached.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mose A. REED Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-0318.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Reed, Mose Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 255-404.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on or about April 12, 2006 and again on June 27, 2007. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleading which is herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald BELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-0343.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Bell, Ronald; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 268-096.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed on or about May 8, 2007. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleading which is herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    In re Appeal of DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 07-PDB-038.
    No. 2007-OB-2050.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Barras, Paulette K; — Plaintiff; Applying for Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board. Office of the Disciplinary Board, No. 07-PDB-038.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    Tommy MORRISON v. BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT and the Baton Rouge Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board.
    No. 2008-C-0214.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Morrison, Tommy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. C540420; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0673.

Not considered; not timely filed. Supreme Court Rule X, section 5(D).


text:
    Henry Lorell GRAHAM v. AMBERG TRUCKING, INC.
    No. 2008-C-0233.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Graham, Henry Lorell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Grant, 35th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 17,330; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-573.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    Jean BOUDREAUX, et al. v. The STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, et al.
    No. 2008-CC-0240.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Boudreaux, Jean et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 71,408; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CW 1716.

Not considered; not timely filed. See State v. Crandell, 05-1060 (La.3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122; Morris v. Stueben, 01-0137 (La.1/26/01), 781 So.2d 1220.


text:
    K.P.W. v. M.P., et al.
    No. 2008-CJ-122.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re K.P.W. — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated February 1, 2008; Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. G, No. 108,644-G; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-904.

Not Considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Willis THOMAS.
    No. 2007-KP-0634.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Thomas, Willis; — Defendant(s); Applying for Rehearing of this Courts order dated January 11, 2008; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 75-1195.

Rehearing denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Justin Charles SINGLETON.
    No. 2007-K-0785.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Singleton, Justin Charles; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 03-K0963D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 06-1372.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dung TRAN.
    No. 2007-KP-1030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Tran, Dung; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 03-7004; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-KH-177.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Byron POINTS.
    No. 2007-KP-1077.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Points, Byron; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 372-254; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0424.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilton M. EVERETTE.
    No. 2007-KP-1096.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Everette, Wilton M.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 416-421; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0383.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jimmy SEE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1148.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re See, Jimmy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 02-05-0353; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CW 0268.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stephen LANPHIER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Lanphier, Stephen; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 20155-03, 8662-05; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). KA06-1510, KH06-1020, KH06-1135, KA06-1509.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James H. O’BANION, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1165.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re O’Banion, James H. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 116-797; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0443.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Warner D. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1231.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Williams, Warner D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 04-F0533; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 42475-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael Lee HOOD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1232.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Hood, Michael Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 65074, 65075, 61167; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 06-01540.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willie J. NOEL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1237.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Noel, Willie J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 98-398, 94-190, 94-646; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 07-00437.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James ORMOND v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1238.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Ormond, James; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 95-6288; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-KH-308.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Alvin IRVING, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1251.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Irving, Alvin Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos.,97437, 503762; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KW 0487.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willard BRANDENBURG v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1252.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Brandenburg, Willard; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 969-04; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 07-00441.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Levy BRISBAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1253.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Brisban, Levy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 387-415; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0471.

■Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edgar JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1254.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Jones, Edgar; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 482-993; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0521.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eugene JEANPIERRE, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1255.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Jeanpierre, Eugene Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 865-647; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0408.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory KELLEY.
    No. 2007-KP-1257.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Kelley, Gregory; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 401-562; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0478.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael CELESTINE.
    No. 2007-KP-1262.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Celestine, Michael; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 398-285; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0419.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cevero GARCIA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1273.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Garcia, Cevero; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2006-766; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-1504.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Troy MCCLOUD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1274.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re McCloud, Troy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 02-6326; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-KH-300.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cedric D. EDWARDS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1275.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Edwards, Cedric D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 171600; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 42550-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 351.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cecil DELAUGHTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1276.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Delaughter, Cecil; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 388561; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KA 2013.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Karl CLOMBURG v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1277.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Clomburg, Karl; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 194-538/539/540; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-0593.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dairie SHERMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Sherman, Dairie D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 275,266; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 07-00398.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward MCGARY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2007-KH-1281.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re McGary, Edward; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 53149; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2007 KW 0444, 2006 KW 2254.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    In re Appeal of the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 05-PDB-166.
    No. 2007-OB-2049.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Brown, Linda Dickey; — Plaintiff; Applying for Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 05-PDB-166.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry E. WARNER.
    No. 2007-KO-2133.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Warner, Larry E.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 460-621; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-KA-0531.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Danny GALINDO.
    No. 2007-K-2145.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Galindo, Danny; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 455-170; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-KA-1090.

Denied.


text:
    Daniel ARCENEAUX, Louis Daverede, Jr., Vives Lemmon and Jules Menesses, et al. v. AMSTAR CORP., Amstar Sugar Corp., Tate and Lyle North American Sugars, Inc., and Domino Sugar Company.
    No. 2007-C-2486.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Continental Casualty Company;— Other; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 86-959; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-CA-1592.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Kurt COATES v. HILL WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY.
    No. 2008-C-0013.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Hill Wholesale Distributing Company; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 481,996“A”; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 42,584-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    RICHLAND PARISH POLICE JURY v. L. Donald DEBNAM and Joyce Berry Debnam.
    No. 2008-C-0016.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Richland Parish Police Jury;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Richland, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 39133-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 42,421-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Daniel ARCENEAUX, Louis Daverede, Jr., Vives Lemmon and Jules Menesses v. AMSTAR CORP., Amstar Sugar Corp., Tate and Lyle North American Sugars, Inc., and Domino Sugar Company.
    No. 2008-C-0053.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Tate & Lyle North American Sugars Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 86-959; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-CA-1592.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Scott E. SCHILLING and Marla Schilling v. Reginald J. MCINTYRE and Lance L. Engolia.
    No. 2008-C-0095.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Schilling, Marla; Schilling, Scott E. et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tan-gipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2006-001240; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0662.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony BELL.
    No. 2008-KD-0097.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Bell, Anthony; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 05-06-0751; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 0072.

Denied.


text:
    Peter ROMERO, et al v. Darryl ELIAS, M.D., et al.
    No. 2008-C-0171.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 84-834; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-806.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Daniel E. MILLICAN v. COREGIS INSURANCE COMPANY, East Baton Rouge Parish School Board and Virginia B. Womack.
    No. 2008-C-0188.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Womak, Virginia B.; East Baton Rouge Parish School Board; Coregis Insurance Company et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Stay, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 507,245; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CA 1270.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Valeria Ann PRICE and Walter Krousel, III v. Wilbert MCCLAY, Jr., M.D., Risk Management Services, L.L.C., and State of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.
    No. 2008-C-0190.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re McClay, Wilbert Jr. M.D. et al.;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 546,319; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 0938.

Denied.


text:
    Helen CARTER v. Collis B. TEMPLE, Jr.
    No. 2008-CC-0196.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Carter, Helen; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, City Court of Baton Rouge, No. 0408-07093; 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 556619; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CW 2173.

Denied.


text:
    R. A. DESIGNS, L.L.C. v. Paul BARRANCO, Nic Bernhard and Riverton Plantation.
    No. 2008-CC-0199.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re R.A. Designs L.L.C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 86,222-A; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CW 2037.

Denied.


text:
    Nicole and Matthew YOUNG v. C. Benny THIBODEAUX, O.D., Eyemasters, Inc., and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2008-C-0217.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Thibodeaux, C. Benny O.D.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2004-2915; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-790.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Bertha Mae STOKES v. Rose Clark REEVES, et al.
    No. 2008-C-0219.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Stokes, Bertha Mae; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Allen, 33th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-2001-585; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-708.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    In the Matter of BELLE COMPANY, L.L.C. Type I and II Solid Waste Landfill, Proceedings Under the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act La. R.S. 30:2001 et Seq. Belle Company, L.L.C. v. Dr. Michael McDaniel, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; and Dr. Chuck Carr Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
    No. 2008-C-0220.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Environmental Quality Louisiana Department of; McDaniel, Michael Dr. Secretary; Brown, Chuck Carr Dr.; — Defendant/s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 442,943, 536,648; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2006 CA 1077, 2006 CA 1078.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Leslie R. ROACH, et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2008-C-0221.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Roach, Leslie R. et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2001-5384; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-352.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Troy CHAUVIN.
    No. 2008-KK-0222.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Chauvin, Troy; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06-478231; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KW 2215.

Denied.


text:
    Frances CARRON v. CITY OF OPELOUSAS City of Opelousas v. Opelousas Municipal Civil Service Commission, et al.
    No. 2008-C-0225.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Opelousas Municipal Civil Service Commission; Carrón, Frances; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 07-1223-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). 07-684, 07-506.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of BELLE COMPANY, L.L.C. Type I and II Solid Waste Landfill, Proceedings Under the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act La. R.S. 30:2001 et Seq. Belle Company, L.L.C. v. Dr. Michael McDaniel, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; and Dr. Chuck Carr Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
    No. 2008-C-0229.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Assumption Parish People’s Environment Action League; — Other; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 442,943, 536,-648; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2006 CA 1077, 2006 CA 1078.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Kenneth L. JARRELL, et al. v. TOWN OF NEW LLANO.
    No. 2008-C-0234.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re New Llano, Town of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 74650; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-787.

Denied.


text:
    Tynirsha W. RHINE, et al. v. BAYOU PIPE COATING, INC., et al.
    No. 2008-CC-0241.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Bayou Companies, LLC; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 103,271; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 07-01298.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    Glenda Callens Cross, Wife of/and Joseph CROSS, Jr. v. Kay Corkern Smith, Wife of/and Robert M. SMITH.
    No. 2008-CC-0242.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Smith, Kay Corkern et al.; Smith, Robert M.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 644-138; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-C-873.

Denied.


text:
    Ceola ZANDERS v. M & M PIZZA, LLC d/b/a Cici’s Pizza # 460.
    No. 2008-CC-0254.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Cici’s Pizza # 460; M & M Pizza, LLC; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, Second Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson, No. 97050; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-C-1009.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    Patricia J. MIZE v. VAN METER, M.D. & ASSOCIATES and Eric R. Ehlenberger.
    No. 2008-C-0260.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Mize, Patricia J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2004-1014; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-CA-0616.

Denied.


text:
    Tynirsha W. RHINE, et al. v. BAYOU PIPE COATING, INC., et al.
    No. 2008-CC-0270.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Gray Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 103271; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 07-01313.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


author: CALOGERO, C.J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald ROBINSON.
    No. 2008-KK-0410.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 24, 2008.
   In re Robinson, Ronald; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 469-339; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-1503.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J.,

would grant and docket. Alternatively, I would remand the case to the court of appeal and order it to entertain oral argument and issue an authored opinion, where the trial judge, after hearing testimony from the victim and argument from counsel, granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the identification and the court of appeal summarily reversed.


text:
    Christine EASTMAN v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION.
    No. CW 07-01079.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Aug. 30, 2007.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 2007.
    Writ Denied Feb. 22, 2008.
    Clayton Arthur Larsh Davis, Lake Charles, for Christine Eastman.
    Donald Cleveland, for Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp.
    Before SAUNDERS, PETERS and SULLIVAN, JJ.
   WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY. We find that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiffs request for jury trial. Louisiana Revised Statute 22:1430.17 identifies the defendant corporation as a “political instrumentality” rather than a “political subdivision” of the state. Additionally, the statute clearly states that the corporation is not an agency of the state. Furthermore, the statutes that follow show that the corporation is not in the nature of a political subdivision or state agency. Louisiana Revised Statute 22:1430.2(B)(1) differentiates between the assets of the corporation and the general funds of the state, and subsection D(£) of that same section subjects the corporation only to those provisions of La.R.S. 42:4.1-13 and La.R.S. 44:1-41 for purposes of public body consideration. The mere fact that the entity was created by legislative act does not make it a political subdivision of the state or a state agency. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling is reversed, and the jury trial is reinstated.


author: CANNIZZARO, J.

text:
    Richard ZENTNER v. SEACOR MARINE, INC.
    No. 2006 CA 2049.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2007.

      Michael S. Harper J., Brent Barry Harper & Barry, LLP, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant, Richard Zentner.
    Alfred J. Rufty, XII, Rufus C. Harris, III, Harris & Rufty, LLC., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee, Seacor Marine, Inc.
    Before McKAY, GORBATY, and CANNIZZARO, JJ.

      . The Honorable James F. McKay, III, Judge, the Honorable David S. Gorbaty, Judge, and the Honorable Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., Judge, all members of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, are serving as judges ad hoc by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

   CANNIZZARO, J.

|gThe plaintiff, Richard Zentner, appeals a summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Seacor Marine, Inc. (“Sea-cor”), dismissing his claims against it. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Seacor employed Mr. Zentner as a captain aboard its vessel, the M/V ANGELA G. On Saturday, April 21, 2001, a verbal confrontation occurred aboard the vessel between Mr. Zentner and one of the deckhands, Mr. Kendrick Davis. At the time, Mr. Zentner was seated behind a table in the “TV room” of the vessel, writing in a logbook, when Mr. Davis walked into the room and threatened him. According to Mr. Zentner, Mr. Davis came toward him from the opposite side of the room, stating, “I’m going to take you on the back deck and kick your ass.” Mr. Zentner replied, “It’s not going to happen on the boat, period.” At that moment, the relief captain, Mr. Howard Nowlin, walked in and stepped between the two men, ending the confrontation.

Afterwards, Mr. Zentner went upstairs to the wheelhouse and e-mailed the Seacor office to report the incident and to request that he and Mr. Davis be separated upon the vessel’s return to port. Meanwhile, Mr. Davis had entered the wheelhouse and again challenged Mr. Zentner to a fight on the back deck, to which he replied, “there’s no way anything like that’s going to happen.”

Seacor later responded by e-mail that it would not separate the two men. Mr. Zentner claimed that he was humiliated when Mr. Davis circulated a copy of Sea-cor’s e-mail response among the co-captain and other crew members, who congratulated Mr. Davis with “high fives” upon learning that the separation request had been denied. Notwithstanding its response, Seacor removed Mr. Davis from the vessel when it returned to port three days later.

laMr. Zentner filed a suit against Seacor under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, and general maritime law, alleging Seacor was negligent in failing to properly supervise Mr. Davis and in failing to remove him from the vessel in a timely manner. He further alleged that Mr. Davis’ presence and insubordination on the M/V ANGELA G created a hostile work environment, which rendered the vessel unsea-worthy. As a result of Seacor’s negligence and the unseaworthiness of the M/V ANGELA G, Mr. Zentner claimed he suffered severe psychological injuries, including depression and anxiety.

Seacor filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Zentner could not recover for purely psychological damages because he did not satisfy the “zone of danger” test as established by the United States Supreme Court in Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532, 114 S.Ct. 2396, 129 L.Ed.2d 427 (1994). It also argued that Mr. Zentner’s testimony, with nothing more, was insufficient to prove either negligence or unseaworthiness and, therefore, summary judgment was correct as a matter of law.

Following the hearing on the motion, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Seacor, stating, “[bjased on Mr. Zentner’s description of the events, I find that he is not entitled to recovery, so I will grant summary judgment to Seacor.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The proper standard of review for an appellate court considering summary judgment is de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Reynolds v. Select Properties Ltd., 93-1480, p. 1 (La.4/11/94), 634 So.2d 1180, 1182. A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits submitted, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C. P. Art. 966. The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. La. C.C.P. Art. |4966(A)(2). The procedure is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends. La. C.C.P. Art. 966(A)(2). La. C.C.P. Art. 966(C)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

The burden of proof remains with the movant. However, if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the movant’s burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense. Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact. [Emphasis added.]

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The Jones Act allows an injured seaman to bring a negligence suit against his employer. 46 U.S.CApp. § 688. Negligence may arise in many ways including the.failure to use reasonable care to provide a seaman with a safe place to work, the existence of a dangerous condition on or about the vessel, or any other breach of the owner’s duty of care. 1 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 6-21, at 312 (2d ed.1994). The duty of care owed by an employer under the Jones Act is that of ordinary prudence, namely the duty to take reasonable care under the circumstances. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 335-336 (5th Cir.1997).

With respect to seaworthiness, an owner of a vessel has an absolute duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel, and a breach of that duty gives rise to a claim for general damages. To state a cause of action for unseaworthiness, the plaintiff must allege an injury “caused by a defective condition of the ship, its, equipment or appurtenances .... Members of the crew of a vessel are also warranted as seaworthy....” 1 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 6-25, at 333-34 (2d ed.1994).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Consolidated Rail, held that an employee may recover damages based on negligence under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act Is(FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., for mental or emotional injuries only if the employee can show he was within a zone of danger of physical impact. The “zone of danger” test adopted by the Supreme Court for actions brought pursuant to FELA, and extended to Jones Act claims, is described as follows:

Under this test, a worker within the zone of danger of physical impact will be able . to. recover , for emotional injury caused by fear of physical injury to himself, whereas a worker outside the zone will not. Railroad employees thus will be able to recover for injuries — physical and emotional — caused by the negligent conduct of their employers that threatens them imminently with physical impact.

Consolidated Rail, 512 U.S. at 556, 114 S.Ct. 2396. “Whether an employee’s claim satisfied the zone of danger test is a legal question.”- Id., 512 U.S. at 546, 554, 114 S.Ct. at 2409-2410. Further, the Supreme Court noted that, regarding injuries which constituted “mental or emotional harm (such as fright or anxiety) that [are] caused by the negligence of another and that [are] not directly brought about by a physical injury,” substantial limitation must be placed “on the class of plaintiffs that may recover for emotional .injuries and on the injuries that may be compensa-ble.” Id., 512 U.S. at 546, 114 S.Ct. at 2405.

In Consolidated Rail, one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Alan Carlisle, worked for Conrail for many years, and after a reduction in the work force, he was required to take on additional duties and to work long, erratic hours for weeks at a time. As a result, he eventually suffered a nervous breakdown and had to be hospitalized. The Court characterized Mr. Carlise’s injury as a complaint that the railroad gave him too much work, which “plainly [did] not fall within the common law’s conception of the zone of danger.” Id., 512 at 558, 114 S.Ct. at 2412. For this reason, the Court held that it would “not take the radical step of reading FELA as compensating for stress arising in the ordinary course of employment,” id., and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for Conrail.

IrJn contrast, the other Consolidated Rail plaintiff, Mr. James Gottshall, suffered in response to a particular incident rather than from a stressful work environment. While working, Mr. Gottshall was assigned to replace a stretch of track during extremely hot and humid conditions. On the first day, a co-worker of Mr. Gotts-hall’s collapsed and died on the tracks of a heart attack, which the coroner reported was brought on by heat, humidity, and heavy exertion. Mr. Gottshall was required to continue working on the track for the next few days under the same hot and humid conditions. He began to fear that he would die as his friend did, and was eventually diagnosed with major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. See id. at 535-37, 114 S.Ct. at 2401.

Noting Mr. Gottshall’s assertion that he was within the zone of danger of a physical impact, the Supreme Court remanded the claim to the Third Circuit, stating it was not adequately briefed on the issue. See id. at 558, 114 S.Ct. at 2411. On remand, the Third Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the railroad, holding that Mr. Gottshall did not claim any physical impact and thus could not satisfy the “zone of danger” requirement. See Gottshall v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 56 F.3d 530, 535 (3rd Cir.1995). The court concluded that the working conditions were not extreme or dangerous enough to place Mr. Gottshall in immediate risk of physical harm, thereby failing the zone of danger test. Id.

In Ferguson v. CSX Transporation, 36 F.Supp.2d 253 (E.D.Pa.1999), aff'd, 208 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir.2000), a railroad employee suffered severe emotional distress as a result of verbal and physical threats by a co-employee, who threatened to kill him and to burn down his house, who made a slashing motion across his neck, and who threw rocks and lumber at the plaintiff from a distance of just several feet while making verbal threats. The court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff was not within a zone of danger of a physical impact within the meaning of the Consolidated Rail standard.

In this case, it is undisputed that Mr. Zentner sustained no actual physical impact or harm during his verbal confrontations with Mr. Davis. Thus, under the Consolidated \7Rail decision, whether or not Mr. Zentner has a negligence claim against Seacor for his psychological injuries depends upon whether the threatened physical impact placed him in reasonable apprehension of physical harm.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Seacor submitted Mr. Zentner’s deposition testimony. On the other hand, Mr. Zentner relied on that same testimony in opposing Seacor’s motion. At his deposition, Mr. Zentner testified that he remained seated during the encounter with Mr. Davis in the TV room and that Mr. Davis, though walking toward him, never got within seven feet of him. He testified that Mr. Davis would have had to crawl over the table to reach him, but did not. Mr. Zentner acknowledged that Mr. Davis had no weapon and his hands were not clenched into fists, as if to indicate he wanted to fight. According to Mr. Zent-ner, the entire incident transpired in the time it took Mr. Davis to walk from the door to the center of the TV room or approximately seven feet. With regárd to the incident in the wheelhouse, Mr. Zent-ner admitted that he felt “challenged” rather than threatened and that nothing happened because Mr. Davis departed the wheelhouse seconds later. Mr. Zentner also testified that from the time he sent the e-mail to Seacor to the crew change three days later, the only complaint he had with Mr. Davis was his failure to complete his assigned tasks. He also acknowledged that Mr. Davis apologized to him for the disagreements between them as he departed the vessel at the time of the crew change.

In addition to Mr. Zentner’s deposition testimony, Seacor also submitted a copy of the e-mail message Mr. Zentner had sent requesting that it separate the two men. Nowhere in the message does Mr. Zentner indicate that he felt threatened or feared for his safety.

Considering the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to Seacor’s motion for summary judgment, nothing indicates that the verbal confrontations between Mr. Zentner and Mr. Davis placed Mr. Zentner in reasonable apprehension of physical harm so as to satisfy the “zone of danger” test enunciated in Consolidated Rail. Furthermore, Mr. Zentner offered no evidence that the M/V ANGELA G was not a treasonably safe vessel upon which to work, that Mr. Davis was a violent person or that Seacor knew or should have known that Mr. Davis might pose a danger to other crew members when it hired him. Absent any such evidence, we agree with the trial court, that, as a matter of law, Mr. Zentner does not have a claim against Seacor based in negligence under the Jones Act or for unseaworthiness of its vessel for any psychological injuries allegedly sustained by him as a result of his verbal confrontations with Mr. Davis.

DECREE

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the summary judgment rendered in favor of Seacor Marine, Inc., dismissing Mr. Zentner’s claims against it.

AFFIRMED.

      . Although Mr. Zentner alleged in his petition that the verbal confrontation occurred on April 3, 2001, the evidence in the record indicates that the incident occurred on April 21, 2001. Also, the petition incorrectly refers to Kendrick Davis as "Kendrick Williams.”

      . The Jones Act incorporates and makes applicable to seaman the substantive recovery provisions of the FELA. See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32, 111 S.Ct. 317, 325] 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990).


author: CARTER, C.J.

text:
    Brenda BERTHELOT v. PATIENTS’ COMPENSATION FUND OVERSIGHT BOARD.
    No. 2007 CA 0112.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Nov. 2, 2007.
    Writ Denied Feb. 1, 2008.

      William R. Mustian, III, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee, Brenda Berthelot.
    David A. Woolridge, Jr., Carlton Jones, III, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board.
    David A. Bowling, Brian C. Ebarb, New Orleans, LA, for for Intervenors/Appellees, Pendleton Methodist Hospital, L.L.C. and Chalmette Medical Center, Inc.
    Kurt S. Blankenship, Robert I. Baudouin, Richard E. Gruner, Jr., Metairie, LA, for Intervenor/Appellee, Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc.
    Peter E. Sperling, Bruce A. Cranner, James P. Waldron, New Orleans, LA, for Intervenors/Appellees, Meadowerest Hospital and Tenet Mid-City Medical, L.L.C.
    Before CARTER, C.J., PETTIGREW, and WELCH, JJ.
   CARTER, C.J.

I ¡/This appeal involves numerous requests/complaints filed with the Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund Oversight Board (the PCF) raising issues of negligent care and failure to evacuate at several hospitals and a nursing home in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In response to each medical review panel request involved in this case, the PCF notified the complainants that the allegations contained in their individual requests/complaints were not within the scope of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA), and therefore, the PCF refused to initiate the medical review panel process. In some instances, the PCF intervened in lawsuits that had been filed, all alleging similar damages at various medical facilities during Hurricane Katrina and its immediate aftermath. In each of the interventions, the PCF aligned itself with the claimants against the health care providers who were seeking judicial decisions (by means of dilatory exceptions raising the objection of prematurity) that the allegations constituted medical malpractice as defined by the LMMA, thereby requiring the medical review panel process to be initiated before litigation.

The PCF appeals from a trial court judgment granting several petitions for mandamus, ordering the PCF to discharge its statutory duties pursuant to LSA-R.S. 40:1299.47 A(3). For the reasons assigned below, we affirm the trial court judgment.

1 ^PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Brenda Berthelot, filed a petition in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court requesting that a writ of mandamus be issued to the PCF directing the PCF to perform its statutory ministerial duties under the LMMA by accepting plaintiffs medical review panel request. Specifically, plaintiff requested that the PCF be ordered to initiate the medical review panel process for her claim/complaint against Buffman, Inc., d/b/a St. Rita’s Nursing Home, surrounding the drowning death of her mother during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. Plaintiff also requested that a declaratory judgment be issued declaring that the PCF had no legal power or authority to take a position regarding whether a medical review panel request contains allegations that present a medical malpractice claim within the scope of the LMMA. Several intervenors (Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical Centér, Inc.; Meadowerest Hospital, L.L.C.; Tenet Mid-City Medical, L.L.C.; Pendleton Methodist Hospital, L.L.C., hereafter referred to as “Pendleton”; Chalmette Médical Center, Inc.; and LifeCare Hospitals of New Orleans, L.L.C.)- filed similar petitions asking for mandamus and declaratory relief, as well as injunctive relief in the claims and lawsuits where either the PCF had made, or sought to make, a determination that the Katrina-related allegations did not constitute medical malpractice.

A hearing was held on October 11, 2006, limited to the mandamus actions and the request for preliminary injunctive relief. The parties reserved their rights to later pursue declaratory and permanent injunc-tive relief. After the hearing, the trial court granted all of the petitions for |4mandamus, ordered the PCF to discharge its statutory duties pursuant to the LMMA, and denied the preliminary -in-junctive relief.

The PCF appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering it to comply with the LMMA because the PCF had initially determined that the claims did not constitute medical malpractice and the trial court had not overruled that determination. The PCF’s main contention on appeal is that the LMMA only applies to medical malpractice claims and the PCF has jurisprudential authority and implied statutory authority to make initial administrative determinations as to whether a medical review panel request contains allegations of medical malpractice under the LMMA sufficient for the PCF to comply with its statutory duties regarding medical review panels. Plaintiff and intervenors counter that the PCF is a creature of statute, and as such it has only those rights and responsibilities granted to it by statute. They argue that the PCF does not have any authority to determine whether a claim is properly considered a medical malpractice claim as defined by the LMMA. Rather, the PCF’s duties are merely ministerial and clerical in nature, and the PCF is attempting to usurp the role of the judiciary by determining whether a claim falls under the LMMA. Thus, plaintiff and intervenors maintain that the PCF’s refusal to adhere to its statutory duties warranted the mandamus relief ordered by the trial court. For the following reasons, we find that the trial court’s order of mandamus was correct in this instance because the PCF has no statutory or jurisprudential authority to make legal determinations as to whether a claim falls within the scope of the LMMA.

| ¡ANALYSIS

The PCF relies on the recent supreme court decision, LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., L.L.C., 07-0008 (La.9/5/07), 966 So.2d 519, for jurisprudential support of its determination that allegations of failure to. properly evacuate in the wake of Hurricane Katrina do not constitute medical malpractice, and therefore, the medical review panel process was not warranted. Further, the PCF maintains that because the LMMA only applies to medical malpractice claims, it has implied statutory authority to make initial administrative determinations regarding the status of the claims before the medical review panel process is initiated, relying on O’Brien v. Rizvi, 04-2252 (La.4/12/05), 898 So.2d 360 and Bennett v. Krupkin, 01-0209 (La.10/16/01), 798 So.2d 940.

At the outset, we note our disagreement with the PCF’s interpretation of the O’Brien and Bennett cases. That line of jurisprudence merely allows the PCF the limited right to intervene in a lawsuit when there has been a settlement or judgment or on the narrow question of the qualification of a health care provider. Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485 (La.6/17/05), 904 So.2d 662, 668-669; O’Brien, 898 So.2d at 364. Contrary to the PCF’s assertions, there is no jurisprudence holding that the PCF has the authority, implied or actual, to make a determination as to whether a claim constitutes medical ^malpractice under the LMMA. This is a res nova issue. However, we are guided by the holding in Hanks, 904 So.2d at 669, where the supreme court found that the Legislature has not chosen to expressly allow the PCF to intervene and appeal a trial court’s judgment of liability, thereby declining to interpret the LMMA to impliedly give that authority to the PCF. Therefore, while the PCF may intervene and appeal the issues of excess damages, qualifications of health care providers, and constitutionality of laws related to medical malpractice, it may not appeal the issue of a health care provider’s liability. See LSA-R.S. 40:1299.44 D(2)(b)(xn); Hanks, 904 So.2d at 669.

We have carefully reviewed the LaCoste decision for guidance as well. In LaCoste, the plaintiff filed a civil action against Pen-dleton, a hospital, for a Katrina-related failure to evacuate/negligent care claim. Pendleton filed a dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity on the basis that the plaintiffs claim sounded in medical malpractice, thus falling within the parameters of the LMMA, which required review by a medical review panel before commencement of litigation. The trial court denied Pendleton’s exception, concluding that the plaintiffs allegations did not invoke coverage of the LMMA. Meanwhile, the PCF notified the parties that the allegations in plaintiffs request for a medical review panel and petition were not within the scope of medical malpractice as defined in the LMMA. The PCF subsequently filed a petition of intervention to align itself with the plaintiff in opposition to the hospital’s prematurity exception. Pendleton then applied to the court of appeal (fourth circuit) for supervisory writs from the trial court’s denial of its exception. The court of appeal concluded that the plaintiffs allegations were medical in nature and fell Rwithin the purview of the LMMA. Thereafter, the supreme court reversed and reinstated the trial court’s denial of Pendleton’s exception, holding that the Katrina-related death claim in that particular case did not sound in medical malpractice (applying the six factors set forth in Coleman v. Deno, 01-1517 (La.1/25/02), 813 So.2d 303, 315-316).

Plaintiffs alleged medical malpractice claim in the case before us, as well as some of the other claims outlined in the interve-nors’ petitions, present in a completely different procedural posture than LaCoste, because the request for a medical review panel with the PCF was filed without first commencing litigation against the health care provider in the trial court. Thus, when the PCF made its initial determination that the claim did not sound in medical malpractice and notified the parties of its decision, the only remedy was to file a mandamus and declaratory action against the PCF since the LMMA does not provide any procedure for claimants to seek review of PCF actions. On the other hand, some of the claims in the interve-nors’ petitions were presented in the same manner as in LaCoste, where the claimant first filed a lawsuit, the health care provider filed an exception raising the objection of prematurity, and the PCF intervened in the lawsuit to align itself against the health care provider by arguing that the claim was not medical malpractice.

Unfortunately, the supreme court’s decision in LaCoste did not discuss the PCF’s authority to determine that a claim was not medical malpractice and thereby refuse to process a request for a medical review panel. Likewise, the LaCoste opinion did not discuss the PCF’s ability to intervene in a lawsuit in order to align itself with the plaintiff against the defendant health care provider on the question of whether the claim | ^constituted medical malpractice. Thus, we believe that the LaCoste decision essentially has -no impact on the narrow issue presently before us. However, in a footnote at the end of the LaCoste opinion, the supreme court noted something pertinent to our decision:

[Wjhether the case is one in medical malpractice or negligence will ultimately be decided at trial by the trier of fact. Today we are concerned only with whether the factual allegations contained in the petition as amended assert claims that fall within the purview of the LMMA and therefore must first be presented to a medical review panel under the procedures of the LMMA. That a fact-finder with more evidence before it may ultimately conclude that the defendant’s conduct was medical malpractice does not control our review of the instant exception of prematurity, which is, as we have explained, limited to the factual allegations in the amended pleadings. (Emphasis added.)

LaCoste, 07-0008, 966 So.2d at 529, n. 2.

We find that the supreme court’s statement in footnote 2 supports the order of mandamus in the case before us. It is the trier of fact that ultimately decides whether a claim sounds in medical malpractice, not the PCF.

The LMMA governs private health care providers. LSA-R.S. 40:1299.41 et seq. Proceedings before a medical review panel are governed by LSA-R.S. 40:1299.47, which provides in pertinent part (with emphasis added):

A. (I )(a) All malpractice claims against health care providers covered by this Part, ... shall be reviewed by a medical review panel established as hereinafter provided for in this Section.
* * *
(3) It shall be the duty of the board within fifteen days of the receipt of the claim by the board to:
ls(a) Confirm to the claimant by certified mail, return receipt requested, that the filing has been officially received and whether or not the named defendant or defendants have qualified under this Part.
(b) In the confirmation to the claimant ... notify the claimant of the amount of the filing fee due and the time frame within which such fee is due to the board, and that upon failure to comply with the provisions [regarding the filing . fee], the request for review of a malpractice claim is invalid and without effect and that the request shall not suspend the time within which suit must be instituted
(c) Notify all named defendants by certified mail, return receipt requested, whether or not qualified under the provisions of this Part, that a filing has been made against them and request made for the formation of a medical review panel; and forward a copy of the proposed complaint to each named defendant at his last and usual place of residence or his office.
* * *
(4) The board shall notify the claimant and all named defendants of any of the following information:
(a) The date of receipt of the filing fee.
(b) That no filing fee was due because the claimant timely provided the affidavit set forth in ... this Section.
(c) That the claimant has timely complied with the provisions of ... this Section.
(d) That the required filing fee was not timely paid pursuant to ... this Section.
B. (I )(a)(i) No action against a health care provider covered by this Part, or his insurer may be commenced in any court before the claimant’s proposed complaint has been presented to a medical review panel established pursuant to this Section.

|inA close examination of the statutory language reveals that the quoted statute, which outlines the PCF’s affirmative and mandatory duties when it receives a request for a medical review panel, does not give the PCF discretion to determine whether a claim falls within the purview of the LMMA. The LMMA is silent as to any PCF duty regarding panel requests other than: (1) confirming receipt of the claim and the qualifications of the health care providers, (2) giving notice of filing fees within specified time frames, (3) notifying health care providers that a claim has been filed and that a request for the formation of a medical review panel has been made, (4) forwarding a copy of the claim to the health care provider,' and (5) notifying all parties when the required filing fee is received by the PCF and whether the claimant has timely or not timely paid the required filing fee. See Golden v. Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Bd., 40,801 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/8/06), 924 So.2d 459, 463, writ denied. 06-0837 (La.6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1261. That is all that the PCF is authorized (or required) to do; no other statutory directive or authority to act is imposed on the PCF in this particular factual scenario. Id.

■Accordingly, the' PCF’s duties under LSA-R.S. 40:1299.47 A are not adjudicative in nature. Bosarge v. Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, 06-1354 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/4/07), 960 So.2d 1063, 1067. Rather, the PCF’s mandatory duty to act when it receives a request to invoke a medical review panel is clerical or ministerial in nature and is designed to facilitate the medical review process. Therefore, we find that mandamus was Inappropriate in this case. See Bosarge, 960 So.2d at 1067; Estate of Nicks v. Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Bd., 05-1624 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/21/06), 939 So.2d 391, 396; Golden, 924 So.2d at 463; In re Medical. Review Panel of Pierson, 02-1598 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/9/03), 845 So.2d 1275, 1276, writ denied. 03-1559 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 324. Because LSA-R.S. 40:1299.47 A is silent as to the PCF’s authority to determine whether a claim constitutes medical malpractice as defined by the LMMA, the PCF lacks adjudicatory authority in a medical review panel proceeding. See Bosarge, 960 So.2d at 1067.

It is. well settled that since the LMMA’s limitations on the liability of qualified health care providers constitute special legislation in derogation of the general rights available to tort victims, its provisions must be strictly construed. Estate of Nicks, 939 So.2d at 396; Pierson, 845 So.2d at 1276. The PCF is a creature of the Legislature designed only to satisfy settlements and/or judgments against health care providers in excess of $100,000.00 up to the statutory maximum. See LSA-R.S. 40:1299.42; Hanks, 904 So.2d at 666. The PCF can have no greater status than given it by the Legislature. Boyd v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 99-1820 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/20/00), 775 So.2d 649, 656, writ denied, 01-0220 (La.3/23/01), 788 So.2d 430. Jurisprudence routinely recognizes that the rights and | ^obligations of the PCF are limited to those expressly proscribed in the LMMA.

We find that the PCF exceeded its statutory authority when it made legal/adjudicative determinations that the claims at issue were not medical malpractice claims. In doing so, the PCF assumed an adversarial position prematurely. We reiterate that the PCF has no economic exposure in these cases unless a settlement or judgment is involved. See Hanks, 904 So.2d at 668; Felix v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 477 So.2d 676, 680 (La.1985); and Williams v. Kushner, 449 So.2d 455, 458 (La.1984). While the PCF has statutory authority under LSA-R.S. 40:1299.44 A(5)(b) to defend, protect, and manage the fund, that duty does not involve making legal determinations regarding whether claims sound in negligence or medical malpractice.

The legislature clearly did not grant the PCF the right to decline to accept a request for a medical review panel based upon its unilateral determination that the claim did not meet the definition of medical malpractice under the LMMA. Likewise, it is not the PCF’s place to assert that a claim does not fall within the scope of the medical malpractice act. It is the claimant’s choice whether to file the claim as a medical malpractice action requesting the medical review panel process or to file a lawsuit as a negligence action. Similarly, it is the healthcare provider’s choice in a lawsuit to raise the issue that the claim sounds - in medical malpractice and must first be presented to a medical review panel before litigation is commenced. The adversarial parties in the panel proceedings are the claimant and the qualified health care provider, not the PCF. See Hanks, 904 So.2d at 667; Golden, 924 So.2d at 463-464. The PCF is simply not an | ^interested party in these matters until there has been a settlement or judgment or for the limited purpose of litigating the qualification of a health care provider or the constitutionality of a law related to medical malpractice. Hanks, 904 So.2d at 668-669. The interpretation of the LMMA is purely a function of the judiciary, and the judiciary alone will determine whether claims fall within the scope of the LMMA unless the Legislature deems it appropriate to authorize some other entity to make that determination.

CONCLUSION

The PCF has overstepped its legislative authority and has not carried out its mandatory clerical and ministerial duties that are clearly set forth in the LMMA. Therefore, the trial court properly issued the mandamus order in this case. We hereby affirm the trial court judgment. The Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund Oversight Board (the PCF) is hereby assessed all costs of this appeal in the amount of $1,358.00.

AFFIRMED.

      . The PCF is a legislatively created entity that administers a fund holding private monies in trust to compensate victims of medical malpractice and to protect qualified health care provider members who may be liable for damages caused by their malpractice. See LSA-R.S. 40:1299.44.

      . We note with interest that the LaCoste matter was one of the many cases cited in Pendle-ton’s petition of intervention in the case sub judice, where the PCF had failed or was expected to fail to perform its statutorily-imposed duty and the PCF intervened in the lawsuit to oppose the fund’s coverage under the LMMA. The trial court’s judgment in the instant case specifically mentions the LaCoste case (among many) when ordering the PCF to discharge its statutory duties. However, the supreme court's recent decision in LaCoste, when final, will render moot the trial court’s mandamus order as it pertains to LaCoste. That result is consistent with our reasoning in this opinion because the judiciary, not the PCF, made the final determination as to whether the LaCoste claim constituted medical malpractice within the meaning of the LMMA.

      . The PCF has been statutorily charged with the duty to determine whether health care providers are qualified under the LMMA. See LSA-R.S. 40:1299.47 A(3)(a).

      . LaCoste would only be at issue if we were reviewing the ultimate decision of whether these claims constituted medical malpractice. Contrary to the PCF’s assertions, this issue was not before the trial court and it is not the question presented in this appeal. The sole issue for us to decide is whether the mandamus was proper in this instance.

      . The word "shall” in a statute indicates a mandatory duty. LSA-R.S. 1:3; LSA-C.C.P. art. 5053; Golden v. Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Bd., 40,801 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/8/06), 924 So.2d 459, 462, writ denied, 06-0837 (La.6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1261.

      . A writ of mandamus is a writ directing, inter alia, a public officer to perform a ministerial duty required by law. LSA-C.C.P. arts. 3861, 3863. The prescribed duty must be purely ministerial; mandamus will not lie to compel performance of an act that contains any element of discretion, however slight. Golden, 924 So.2d at 462. The proper function of the writ of mandamus is to compel the doing of a specific thing; it must indicate the precise thing to be done. Id. Nothing can be inquired into but the question of duty on the face of the statute and the ministerial character of the duty the public officer is charged to perform. Estate of Nicks v. Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Bd., 05-1624 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/21/06), 939 So.2d 391, 396.

      .The LMMA defines "malpractice” at LSA-R.S. 40:1299.41 A(8).

      . As noted infra at footnote 2, the supreme court’s ruling in the LaCoste decision, once final, renders that portion of the trial court’s judgment granting mandamus relief in the LaCoste matter moot.