text:
    Johnette WILCZEWSKI v. BROOKSHIRE GROCERY STORE.
    No. 2009-C-0456.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 13, 2009.
   In re Brookshire Grocery Store; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 2, No. 07-04536; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCA 08-718.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant in part on issue of penalties and attorney fees.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Randy MENARD and Theresa Menard v. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT # 2, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-0457.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 13, 2009.
   In re Hutchinson Dr., Miriam; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 87333; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 08-01230.

Denied.


text:
    Le Anne LOTRIDGE, et al. v. Maria Hernandez ABRIL, et al. Charles Fellows, MD, et al. v. Maria Hernandez Abril, et al.
    No. 2009-C-0458.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 13, 2009.
   In re Lotridge, G. Brady; Lotridge, Le Anne et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, Nos. 2004-10053, 2004-13495; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2007-CA-1401, 2007-CA-1402.

Denied.


text:
    Cecelie MCGASKEY, et vir. v. NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INSURANCE CO., et al.
    No. 2009-C-0459.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 13, 2009.
   In re McGaskey, Cecelie et vir.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 75,234-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-511.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Berry CHANDLER.
    No. 2009-KD-0503.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 13, 2009.
   In re Chandler, Berry; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 04-M 3027-2, 04-M 3028-2, 04-M 3029-2, 01-F 0230-2.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leroy SORDEN.
    No. 2009-KK-0599.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 13, 2009.
   In re Sorden, Leroy; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 481-167; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0051.

Denied.


author: WHIPPLE, J.

text:
    Mary P. PENNINGTON v. CUNA BROKERAGE SECURITIES, INC. and Brad F. Fortier.
    No. 2008 CA 0589.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Oct. 1, 2008.

      Joseph M. Myers, Covington, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Mary P. Pennington.
    William J. Perry, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants/Appellees, CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc. and Brad F. Fortier.
    Before CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE and DOWNING, JJ.
   WHIPPLE, J.

| ^Plaintiff, Mary P. Pennington, appeals the trial court judgment denying her motion to vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of the defendants, CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc. (“CUNA”) and its registered representative, Brad F. Fortier, and dismissing her claims with prejudice. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

The dispute and resulting appeal arises out of losses Ms. Pennington sustained in investments made on her behalf in mutual stock funds offered by the defendants, and the district court’s denial of her motion to vacate the ruling of an arbitration panel. In late 1999, Ms. Pennington contacted Mr. Fortier to discuss the feasibility of taking her BellSouth Pension Plan’s early retirement benefit as a lump sum, rather than in monthly annuity payments, and investing the amount, approximately $172,000.00, in mutual funds offered by CUNA. Ms. Pennington completed the defendant’s questionnaire concerning her retirement income needs and the proper asset allocation mix for her retirement portfolio.

On June 28, 2000, plaintiff entered into a brokerage agreement and opened an IRA account with the defendants, CUNA and Brad Fortier. The brokerage agreement provides for arbitration of disputes according to the rules and procedures of the National Association of Security Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”). Subsequently, Ms. Pennington invested the lump sum early retirement benefit that she received from her employer in mutual funds offered by the defendants. Thereafter, Ms. Pennington alleges, she suffered significant losses.

On June 17, 2006, Ms. Pennington initiated arbitration against the defendants, contending in her statement of claim (“SOC”) that the defendants were liable for her losses due to their breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and | ^negligence. In March of 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the arbitration, urging that Ms. Pennington’s claims had prescribed pursuant to the one-year prescriptive period for torts set forth in LSA-C.C. art. 3492. Alternatively, the defendants requested that the arbitration panel dismiss those portions of the claim that were time-barred by any other applicable prescriptive periods.

Ms. Pennington opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that Louisiana’s prescriptive periods only apply to actions instituted in courts and do not apply to Louisiana arbitrations. In addition, Ms. Pennington argued that the NASD six-year eligibility rule governs and determines whether a claim is timely submitted for arbitration in the absence of a specific agreement between the parties or a statute applying state prescriptive periods to the arbitration. The defendants argued that the NASD six-year eligibility rule does not prevent statute-of-limitation defenses in arbitration proceedings as the NASD manual includes a provision that the eligibility rule shall not extend applicable statutes of limitations. In addition, the defendants contended that the NASD Arbitrator’s manual addresses this rule in its prehear-ing section on motions to dismiss and cautions arbitrators to be aware that a statute of limitations may preclude the awarding of damages even where the claim is facially eligible for submission to arbitration under NASD rules.

On April 30, 2007, the arbitration panel (the “panel”) considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss at a pre-hearing “conference” conducted by telephone. By majority decision, with one member dissenting, the panel found “that the claims asserted by Claimant are each time barred by an applicable statute of limitations.” The majority also found “no genuine issue of material fact to be presented by trial” and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ms. Pennington’s claims “in their entirety with prejudice.” Ms. Pennington filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award with the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, raising [4statutory and non-statutory grounds based on the panel’s allegedly erroneous application of Louisiana prescriptive periods to the claims and the panel’s failure to comply with its own rules and conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the merits of her claim. The trial court denied Ms. Pennington’s motion to vacate.

Ms. Pennington appeals, asserting the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court committed legal error in failing to vacate the award pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:4210(D) where the arbitration panel exceeded its power by applying Louisiana prescriptive periods to an arbitration; or alternatively, by applying Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period instead of Louisiana’s ten-year prescriptive period.

2. The trial court committed legal error in failing to vacate the award where the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law where it applied Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period instead of Louisiana’s ten-year prescriptive period as the applicable statute of limitations for Ms. Pennington’s claims.

3. The trial court committed legal error in failing to vacate the award pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:4210(C) where the arbitration panel was guilty of misconduct in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy.

DISCUSSION

In her third assignment of error, Ms. Pennington challenges the conduct of the arbitration panel, contending that the pre-hearing conference did not afford her a fundamentally fair hearing as there was no opportunity to present evidence or witnesses and expert witness testimony. In addition, Ms. Pennington contends that the parties, by contract, agreed to arbitrate their dispute in accordance with NASD rules. Noting that the agreement incorporates NASD Rule 10303(a), which requires an evidentiary hearing unless waived by the parties, Ms. Pennington contends the panel acted improperly, as she did not waive this requirement. In further support, Ms. Pennington notes that the dissenting arbitrator specifically 15cited NASD Rule 10303(a) as one of the reasons for his dissent. Ms. Pennington contends that the panel’s failure to provide her an evidentiary hearing pursuant to NASD Rule 10303(a) prejudiced her as she was not afforded an opportunity to present pertinent and material evidence to support her claims.

Conversely, the defendants assert that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed because dismissing time-barred claims pursuant to a motion to dismiss considered at a pre-hearing conference does not constitute a statutory ground for vacating an arbitration award. They also contend that the NASD hearing rule does not require a full evidentiary hearing and that the parties fully briefed the issues to the panel and presented oral arguments at the pre-hearing conference proceeding, which sufficiently provided Ms. Pennington with a fundamentally fair hearing and satisfied the NASD rule.

Because of the strong public policy favoring arbitration, arbitration awards are generally presumed to be valid. MMR-Radon Constructors, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company, 1997-0159 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/3/98), 714 So.2d 1, 5, writ denied, 1998-1485 (La.9/4/98), 721 So.2d 915. The statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award are found in LSA-R.S. 9:4210 as follows:

In any of the following cases the court in and for the parish wherein the award was made shall issue an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration.
A. Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
B. Where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators or any of them.
C. Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
DP. Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired, the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.

It is well settled that a court ordinarily does not sit in an appellate capacity to an arbitration panel, but confínes its determinations to whether there exists one or more of the specific grounds for impeachment as provided by the statute. MMR-Radon Constructors, Inc., 714 So.2d at 5. Moreover, absent the existence of one of the specified grounds for vacating an arbitration award, the reviewing court is prohibited from reviewing the merit s of the arbitrator’s decision. Wittich v. Wittich, 2006-418, p. 7 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/28/06), 948 So.2d 195, 198. Thus, the grounds listed in LSA-R.S. 9:4210 do not include errors of law or fact, which are insufficient to invalidate an award fairly and honestly made. See St. Tammany Manor; Inc. v. Spartan Building Corporation, 509 So.2d 424, 427 (La.6/22/87); JK Developments, LLC v. Amtek of Louisiana, Inc., 2007-1825, p. 3 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/26/08), 985 So.2d 199, 201 writ denied, 2008-0889 (La.6/20/08), 983 So.2d 1276 (citing National Tea Co. v. R.R. Richmond, 548 So.2d 930, 933 (La.9/12/89)).

Although arbitration proceedings are not held to the same strict rules as are the courts, nonetheless, an arbitrator must be vigilant in affording basic due process requirements. See Montelepre v. Waring Architects, 2000-0671, 2000-0672, p. 5 (La. App. 4th Cir.5/16/01), 787 So.2d 1127, 1131-32. The first and foremost requirement is the opportunity to present evidence and to be heard. Pittman Construction Company, Inc. v. Pittman, 1996-1498, 1996-1079 (La.App. 4th Cir.3/12/97), 691 So.2d 268, 274, writ denied, 1997-0960 (La.5/16/97), 693 So.2d 803. The appellate court’s function is to determine if the arbitration proceedings have been fundamentally fair. Montelepre, 2000-0671, 2000-0672 at |7p. 5, 787 So.2d at 1131. The standard of review of arbitration procedures is whether a party to an arbitration has been denied a fundamentally fair hearing. In re Arbitration Between U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc. and PSI, Inc., 577 So.2d 1131, 1135(La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 580 So.2d 676 (La.1991).

The parties have not provided any Louisiana state cases specifically addressing the particular issue of what constitutes due process in the context of a pre-hearing disposition and dismissal for failure to state a cognizable claim. However, because of the strong and substantial similarities between our state arbitration provisions and the federal arbitration law, we may look to the federal jurisprudence to provide guidance in the interpretation of our state arbitration provisions. See Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 2004-2804, 2004-2857 (La.6/29/05), 908 So.2d 1,18.

The defendants cite Sheldon v. Vermonty, 269 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir.10/31/01) as support for affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs claims. In Sheldon, the arbitration claimant’s SOC alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty. Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1205. In response, the defendants filed separate motions to dismiss plaintiffs claims for failure to state a claim. Id. After hearing arguments on the motions to dismiss from the parties’ counsel, the arbitration panel granted the motions and dismissed all of the plaintiffs claims with prejudice. Id. The district court confirmed the arbitration award and also entered a separate judgment dismissing the plaintiffs claims. Id.

On appeal, the Sheldon claimant argued that NASD procedural rules required the arbitration panel to permit discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing before it could dismiss his claims. Id. He argued that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority in dismissing his claims based solely on the allegations in his pleadings and the arguments of counsel at a telephonic hearing and that these errors denied him a fundamentally fair hearing. Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1205-06.

|sThe Sheldon court concluded that although the NASD’s procedural rules do not specifically address whether an arbitration panel has the authority to dismiss facially deficient claims with prejudice based solely on the pleadings, there is no express prohibition against such a procedure. Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1206. In addition, the Sheldon court concluded that the NASD’s procedural rules expressly provide that the arbitrators shall be empowered to award any relief that could be available in a court of law and this logically included the authority to dismiss facially deficient claims with prejudice. Id. Accordingly, the Sheldon court held that an NASD arbitration panel has full authority to grant a pre-hearing motion to dismiss with prejudice based solely on the parties’ pleadings so long as the dismissal does not deny a party fundamental fairness. Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1206.

As defendants correctly note, the Sheldon court found that if a party’s claims are facially deficient and the party therefore has no relevant or material evidence to present at an evidentiary hearing, the arbitration panel has full authority to dismiss the claims without permitting discovery or holding an evidentiary hearing. Id. However, the Sheldon court also recognized that a fundamentally fair arbitration hearing requires notice, opportunity to be heard and to present relevant and material evidence and argument before the decision makers, which opportunities the claimant had received in the proceedings at issue therein. Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1207.

Moreover, the Sheldon court stated that as a general matter, a party should be granted an opportunity to amend his claims prior to a dismissal with prejudice. Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1207 n. 5. Noting that prior to the dismissal with prejudice, the claimant had been given the opportunity to amend his pleadings both in the district court and in the arbitration proceeding and that none of his amended pleadings cured the deficiencies in his claims, the court affirmed the dismissal. Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1207 n. 5.

|flWe agree with Sheldon that NASD Rule 10303(a) does not preclude an arbitration panel from granting a motion to dismiss an arbitration claim that is facially deficient in a pre-hearing telephonic conference under appropriate circumstances. See Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1206. However, we also agree that a fundamentally fair arbitration hearing requires, at a minimum, notice, opportunity to be heard and to present relevant and material evidence and oral argument before the decision makers. See Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1207. Moreover, a party should be granted an opportunity to amend his claims to state a cognizable claim, if he can do so, prior to being dismissed with prejudice. See Sheldon, 269 F.3d at 1207 n. 5.

In the instant matter, we note that Ms. Pennington timely raised her objections to the panel in her brief. While the record before us shows that Ms. Pennington was afforded the opportunity to brief her opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss and to present oral argument at the pre-hearing telephonic conference, it does not indicate whether Ms. Pennington was granted the opportunity to amend her pleadings prior to the dismissal of her claims with prejudice or to present evidence establishing the nature of her claims, which we deem necessary to determine the prescriptive periods applicable to each. In light of Sheldon and the particular circumstances reflected in the record, we find that Ms. Pennington has demonstrated that the arbitration panel acted improperly and that the panel’s conduct prejudiced her rights. At a minimum, fundamental fairness requires that parties be given the opportunity to present evidence, which in this case is clearly necessary to establish the precise nature of Ms. Pennington’s various claims and to determine the applicable prescriptive periods thereto. Further, we agree that fundamental fairness requires that she be granted the | ^opportunity to amend her pleadings to cure any deficiencies prior to dismissal of claims with prejudice at a pre-hearing telephone conference. Finding merit to this assignment of error, we specifically preter-mit review of Ms. Pennington’s other assignments of error concerning the appropriate Louisiana prescriptive periods or whether application of an erroneous period falls within one of the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award.

MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT

Defendants allege that the losses at issue were attributable to other factors, including a “bear market” and/or Ms. Pennington’s conduct in moving monies back and forth between accounts through a series of transfers and exchanges which occurred, citing transfer orders for her accounts. On appeal, the defendants filed a motion to supplement the record with three exhibits in support which they allege were “mistakenly omitted” by Ms. Pennington when she filed her motion to vacate in the district court. Pretermitting whether Ms. Pennington was responsible for ensuring that defendants’ exhibits were presented to the district court, we deny the defendants’ motion to supplement, as these exhibits were not introduced in nor considered by the district court. Thus, we are precluded from considering them on appeal. Guilbeau v. Custom Homes by Jim Fussell, Inc., 2006-0050 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/3/06), 950 So.2d 732, 735.

Ms. Pennington also filed an unopposed motion to supplement her brief, styled as a “Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal,” essentially seeking to supplement her earlier briefed arguments on the applicability of Louisiana prescriptive periods to NASD arbitration proceedings. In light of our decision on appeal, we deny as moot the appellant’s second motion to supplement.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s judgment and grant Ms. Pennington’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. We remand the matter tojnthe district court for further proceedings, ordering a remand for further proceedings before an arbitration panel, consistent with the views expressed herein. The motion to supplement filed by appellant, Mary P. Pennington, is denied as moot. The motion to supplement filed by appellees, CUNA Brokerage Securities, Inc. and Brad F. Fortier, is denied at appellees’ costs. All other costs of these proceedings are assessed against the defendants/appellees, CUNA Brokerage Securities, Inc. and Brad F. Fortier.

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DENIED AS MOOT; AP-PELLEES’ MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DENIED; REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH ORDER.

      . The NASD has changed its name to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. ("FINRA”). For consistency, FINRA will be referred to as NASD herein.

      . In addition to citing NASD Rule 10303(a), the dissenting arbitrator stated that LSA-C.C. art. 3499, Louisiana’s ten-year prescriptive period, applies to personal actions.

      . In In re Arbitration Between U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc. and PSI, Inc., this court stated that as a general rule, a party must object to arbitrator misconduct at the hearing when he knows the reasons supporting the objection before such objection will be considered. U.S. Turnkey, 577 So.2d at 1135. Although there is no transcript of the pre-hearing conference, Ms. Pennington's attorney clearly raised her objections in her brief, which does appear of record.


author: McDonald, j.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Guy Joseph DICKINSON.
    No. 2008 KA 0558.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2008.

      Scott M. Perrilloux, District Attorney, LeÁnne H. Mainer, Assistant District Attorney, Livingston, Louisiana, for Plain-tiffilst Appellant, State of Louisiana.
    John P. Calmes, Jr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for Defendant/2nd Appellant, Guy Joseph Dickinson.
    Before PETTIGREW, McDONALD, and HUGHES, JJ.
   McDonald, j.

|2The defendant, Guy Joseph Dickinson, was charged by bill of information with one count of vehicular homicide, a violation of La. R.S. 14:32.1, and pled not guilty. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty as charged. The defendant moved for post-verdict judgment of acquittal, but the motion was denied. He was sentenced to seven years without hard labor, with one year without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The rest of the sentence was suspended, and defendant was given five years probation. The court also ordered that he attend a victims’ impact panel and substance abuse and driver improvement programs. The defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the results of a blood-alcohol test conducted at Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center (Our Lady of the Lake) on the night of the accident and that the jury erred in finding him guilty because the State introduced no evidence to prove that he was the proximate or direct cause of the death of the victim. The State also appeals, contending that the trial court imposed an illegally lenient sentence. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS

On October 14, 2005, at approximately 11:15 p.m., the victim, Stacy Link, was killed in a car accident. She had been a passenger along with her fiance, Christopher Wayne Mouille, and Scott Pourciau in a white Ford Excursion driven by the defendant. The accident occurred on a dry blacktop road in clear weather.

According to Mouille, at approximately 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. on the day of the accident, he and the defendant started drinking beer from an ice chest containing six to twelve cans of beer. After picking up Pourciau, the men went to Chris Wat-ley’s house. Watley provided beer and jello shots at his house, and while 13Mouille indicated that he and the defendant drank at Watley’s house, he was unaware of how much the defendant drank there. The defendant, Mouille and Pourciau then went to Superior Grill to pick up the victim. They arrived between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and each drank a Margarita before leaving. The fatal accident occurred as the group of friends drove on Florida Boulevard towards Juban Road to take Pour-ciau home.

Louisiana State Police Trooper Jason Shavers responded to the accident. The Nissan Sentra involved in the accident was on the westbound lane of U.S. Hwy. 190, facing east. The Ford Excursion was in a ditch on the north side of U.S. Hwy. 190, resting on its passenger’s side. Based on the physical evidence, accounts of the occupants of the vehicles, and the account of an independent witness, Trooper Shavers determined that the collision had occurred after the Nissan Sentra made a left turn out of a private driveway, attempting to travel west on U.S. Hwy. 190 and was struck in the rear quarter panel by the eastbound Ford Excursion. The Ford Excursion then continued eastbound, yawed off the roadway to the left, struck a culvert, vaulted over a private driveway, landed on its driver’s side, and rolled onto its passenger’s side.

Trooper Shavers measured a 105-foot yaw mark from the right front tire of the Ford Excursion. He saw no indication of any effort to steer to avoid the accident or emergency braking or skid marks indicating driver reaction to the collision.

l4When Trooper Shavers spoke to the defendant on October 15, 2005, at approximately 4:00 a.m., he noticed a faint odor of alcoholic beverages coming from the defendant’s facial area and breath. Trooper Shavers performed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test on the defendant and detected six clues indicating that the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages.

Trooper Shavers indicated, after being advised of his rights, the defendant admitted he was under the influence of some type of alcoholic beverage at the time of the accident. Trooper Shavers conceded, however, that the defendant answered negatively to the question on the interview questionnaire, “Did you feel the effects of alcoholic beverage or drugs when you were stopped.” The defendant told Trooper Shavers that he (the defendant) had been drinking all day, specifically four or five beers, prior to going to Superior Grill. The defendant claimed he tried to stop after the Nissan Sentra pulled out in front of him, but could not remember if he struck the vehicle because he blacked out. Trooper Shavers arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated and advised him of his rights relating to chemical testing. The defendant stated he understood and voluntarily submitted a blood sample. A registered nurse drew the defendant’s blood in the presence of Trooper Shavers at 4:03 a.m. Trooper Shavers transported the blood sample at to the evidence custodian for submittal to the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab. Testing on the sample-revealed a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams percent.

The defendant’s blood was also tested in connection with treatment he received at Our Lady of the Lake. Blood-alcohol analysis on his blood on October 15, 2005, at 1:21 a.m., revealed a blood-serum-alcohol level of 149.2 mg/dl or .135 grams of alcohol per one hundred cubic centimeters of blood.

Jimmy Barnhill, Assistant Director for the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory, was accepted as an expert in the field of the effects of alcohol on the | (¡human body and blood-alcohol determinations. He indicated that as a person’s blood-alcohol level rose over .05, his vision would be affected in three ways. The person might begin to see double or suffer from diplopia. Further, the time required for the person to recover from the dazzling effect of a bright light would be lengthened. Additionally, the person’s ability to see peripherally would be diminished. Barnhill also indicated that the person’s reaction time would be slower and their ability to make quick decisions would be impaired.

Barnhill also testified that assuming that there was not a bizarre drinking situation, and based on the two blood-alcohol test results, and 2.75 hours elapsed time between the two results, his opinion was that the defendant’s blood-alcohol level at the time of the accident was “somewhere around .15[.j” Barnhill stated, “I think I actually calculated it three decimal places, and it turned out to be .155.”

Aimee Breaux, the driver of the Nissan Sentra, submitted to a breath test on the intoxilyzer machine, and the machine indicated she had no alcohol in her system.

Donald McLean, Jr., a passenger in the Nissan Sentra, testified that the collision felt like he and the other occupants of the Nissan Sentra had hit a pothole. Immediately after the collision, McLean saw a car swerve all over the road, veer off the road, come back onto the road, go into a ditch, presumably hit a culvert, and flip end over end. According to McLean, the posted speed limit in the area was forty-five miles per hour.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In assignment of error number two, the defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict against him because the evidence at trial indicated that he was operating a white Ford Excursion in the eastbound lane of U.S. Hwy. 190 when a black Nissan Sentra failed to yield as it exited the parking lot of a closed business and pulled into the eastbound lane where the accident occurred. In | fiassignment of error number three, for the same reasons set forth in support of assignment of error number two, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying the motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.

The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could conclude the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In conducting this review, we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana’s circumstantial evidence test, which states in part, “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove,” in order to convict, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. State v. Wright, 98-0601, p. 2 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/19/99), 730 So.2d 485, 486, writs denied, 99-0802 (La.10/29/99), 748 So.2d 1157, 2000-0895 (La.11/17/00), 773 So.2d 732 (quoting La.R.S. 15:438).

When a conviction is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence, the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. Wright, 98-0601 at p. 3, 730 So.2d at 487.

As pertinent here, vehicular homicide is the killing of a human being caused proximately or caused directly by an offender engaged in the operation of, or in actual physical control of, any motor vehicle, whether or not the offender has the intent to cause death or great bodily harm, when the operator’s blood-alcohol concentration is 0.08 percent or more by weight based upon grams of alcohol per one hundred cubic centimeters of blood or the operator is under the influence of |7alcoholic beverages. La. R.S. 14:32.1(A)(1), (2).

Under the vehicular homicide statute, the State, in order to convict, must prove that an offender’s unlawful blood-alcohol concentration combined with his operation of a vehicle to cause the death of a human being. The evident purpose of the statute is to curb traffic fatalities caused by the consumption of alcohol. It is not aimed at persons involved in vehicular fatalities whose alcohol consumption does not cause, but merely coincides with, such an accident. The statute should be construed to require proof of a causal relationship between an operator’s unlawful blood-alcohol concentration and the death of the victim in order to convict. State v. Taylor, 463 So.2d 1274, 1275 (La.1985).

The defendant’s reliance upon State v. Archer, 619 So.2d 1071 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 626 So.2d 1178 (La.1993), is misplaced. In Archer, this court reversed a conviction for vehicular homicide, holding that the State failed to sufficiently establish that the defendant’s blood-alcohol concentration combined with the operation of his vehicle and resulted in the victim’s death. We found that the hypothesis that the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident was speeding and ran a red light was sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Archer, 619 So.2d at 1075. We noted that the defendant’s statement at the scene that he had a green left-turn arrow was neither disproved nor disputed. Archer, 619 So.2d at 1074. We also noted testimony from a passenger in the other vehicle that the driver and passengers in the other vehicle had been celebrating the birthday of one of the passengers prior to the accident. Archer, 619 So.2d at 1075. The men had purchased a case of beer and stored it in a cooler in the vehicle. Id. They had also been drinking for three to four hours prior to the accident. Id. Additionally, we noted expert opinion that the driver of the other vehicle was driving at least five to |sten miles over the speed limit. Id.

In the instant case, the testimony credited by the jury indicated that the defendant, and not the driver of the Nissan Sentra, had been drinking for hours prior to the collision with the Nissan Sentra. Additionally, physical evidence at the scene indicated the defendant failed to react to the collision.

After a thorough review of the record, we are convinced the evidence presented in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all of the elements of vehicular homicide and the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of that offense against the victim. The verdict rendered against the defendant indicates the jury accepted the testimony of the State’s witnesses which established that the victim’s death was the result of the defendant’s allowing the Ford Excursion to veer off the road after striking the Nissan Sentra, and that the defendant failed to stop because he was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. As the trier of fact, the jury was free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. State v. Johnson, 99-0385, p. 9 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/5/99), 745 So.2d 217, 223, writ denied, 2000-0829 (La.11/13/00), 774 So.2d 971. On appeal, this court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or re weigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder’s determination of guilt. State v. Glynn, 94-0332, p. 32 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/7/95), 653 So.2d 1288, 1310, writ denied, 95-1153 (La.10/6/95), 661 So.2d 464. Further, in reviewing the evidence, we cannot say that the jury’s determination was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to them. See State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207, p. 14 (La.11/29/06), 946 So.2d 654, 662.

Additionally, the verdict rendered against the defendant indicates that the jury rejected the defense theory that the driver of the Nissan Sentra was the only direct or proximate cause of the death of the victim. The damage to the Nissan Sentra was to | ¡)the rear of the vehicle, and there was no evidence that the Nissan Sentra knocked the much larger and heavier Ford Excursion off the road. When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt. See State v. Moten, 510 So.2d 55, 61 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 514 So.2d 126 (La.1987). No such hypothesis exists in the instant case.

These assignments of error are without merit.

ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

In assignment of error number one, the defendant argues that the results of the blood-alcohol test on the blood drawn for treatment purposes at Our Lady of the Lake did not meet the admissibility requirements of State v. Honeyman, 560 So.2d 825 (La.1990).

When the State does not rely on the statutory presumption of intoxication, it may use all admissible evidence including the hospital record, the testimony of the technologist performing the blood-alcohol test, and expert testimony concerning the likely effect upon an individual of a given blood-alcohol level, to prove that a defendant is guilty of vehicular homicide. In order for the results of a blood-alcohol test to be admissible, the State must prove that the reliability of the test satisfies due process and fairness. Should there be no predominant evidence of careful adherence to strict procedures in administering intoxication tests, or in the event that a defendant takes issue with the qualifications of a technician, the quality of the testing machine, or the maintenance of the equipment, and so forth, the court, in the interest of due process and fairness, may well be entitled to bar the evidence. Honey-man, 560 So.2d at 829.

l1(VAt trial, the defendant challenged the admissibility of his medical records, which included blood-alcohol analysis on his blood on October 15, 2005, at 1:21 a.m., indicating a blood-serum-alcohol level of 149.2 mg/dl or .135 grams of alcohol per one hundred cubic centimeters of blood. The defendant challenged the reliability of the machine used to test his blood sample. He questioned whether Our Lady of the Lake Medical Technologist Millicent Chu-kuwemeka had conducted the analysis. He claimed Registered Nurse Marjorie Firestone had used an alcohol swab to clean the site before drawing his blood. He questioned whether quality control had been performed on the testing machine prior to it being used to test his blood sample. He also argued that Chukuweme-ka had indicated that deionized water had been used to clean the testing machine, but had not indicated how the water was produced, where it was produced, or who had produced the water. The State argued the defendant’s arguments went to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility. The State further argued that it had shown the protocols according to Honeyman, and had produced the records as per the custodian of the records. The court allowed the records to come into evidence, and the defendant assigned error to the court’s ruling.

Dr. Robert Muhumuza testified he had been a licensed physician in Louisiana for approximately eleven years, in Texas for approximately fourteen years, and in Uganda for approximately eighteen years. He was certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology. Dr. Muhumuza practiced emergency medicine at Our Lady of the Lake, taught residents at Earl K. Long, and had a private practice in Gonzales. He treated the defendant at Our Lady of the Lake on October 14, 2005— October 15, 2005. Dr. Muhumuza ordered radiological studies of the defendant and blood work. He indicated he did not believe that swabbing a patient with alcohol prior to drawing their blood would affect the results of the Inblood-alcohol level in the blood. He indicated that the swabbed area would normally be allowed to dry before a needle was introduced, and the alcohol swabs used were prepacked and contained very little alcohol. Dr. Muhu-muza also noted that the human body had ten liters of fluid so any alcohol introduced would be like adding a little alcohol to a big pool of water.

Registered Nurse Marjorie Firestone testified that, on October 15, 2005, she drew the defendant’s blood at Our Lady of the Lake on the order of Dr. Robert Mu-humuza. She had a B.S. in nursing, had been licensed to practice nursing in Louisiana for twenty and one-half years, and was certified in trauma nursing and advanced cardiac life support. She indicated her procedure for taking blood involved checking the doctor’s orders; checking the patient’s name by their armband; drawing the blood; placing the blood into tubes; placing her initials, the time the blood was drawn, the patient’s date of birth and the patent’s hospital number on the tubes; placing the tubes into a bag; and sending the bag to the lab by placing it into a pneumatic tube system. Nurse Firestone indicated she had personally placed the required information on the tubes after drawing the defendant’s blood and had sent the tubes to the lab. She indicated controls were in place to prevent tubes from being mixed up and she was unaware of there ever having been a mix-up with tubes. She indicated she could not recall whether she used an alcohol prep or a betadine prep in connection with drawing the defendant’s blood.

Millicent Chukuwemeka testified she had been a medical technologist for eight to nine years. She had graduated from LSU Medical Center in 1998 with a B.S. She was certified with the American Association for Clinical Pathologists. She was also licensed and took at least twelve hours of education every year in order to renew her license. She performed tests on blood samples all day long in [ 1Pher job at Our Lady of the Lake. She used an Architect 8000 series machine to determine blood-alcohol concentrations. The lab at Our Lady of the Lake had controls in place which were tested and upgraded to ensure that they were followed. Prior to determining blood-alcohol concentrations in a sample, Chukuwemeka ran the sample against a known standard to check the accuracy of the result.

Blood samples were delivered to the lab by a chute system. After blood was drawn and placed in a tube, it would be labeled with a bar code which identified the patient name, I.D. Number, and medical records number. Then it would be sealed in a biohazard bag, and this bag would be locked into another container and placed into the chute system. After receiving a sample for testing, while the sample was still in a sealed tube, Chukuwemeka would “spin it down” to separate the blood from the serum, and then test the serum in a machine which would automatically transfer results to a computer which would display the results. Protocols to prevent contamination included wearing gloves, making sure every tube was by itself, placing the tubes in a particular section of a rack, making sure the instrument was well maintained, and keeping the records updated. Chukuwemeka indicated if a sample was contaminated, the test results would indicate contamination and the test would be repeated. She indicated quality control was performed on the machine once per every eight-hour shift and all quality controls worked for all samples tested on the day that the defendant’s blood sample was tested. Quality control was performed on the Architect 8000 machine between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on the night the defendant’s blood sample was tested. The State introduced the quality control protocols for the Architect 8000 machine into evidence.

|1sThe Architect 8000 machine used deionized water to clean its different probes and also to flush the probes. Chu-kuwemeka indicated she did not know the source of the deionized water other than it came from a mechanism on the wall. She also did not specifically remember the sample concerning the defendant, but indicated, “When I checked the record, my signature was there.”

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the results of the blood-alcohol test performed on the defendant’s blood at Our Lady of the Lake to come into evidence. The State proved the reliability of the test satisfied due process and fairness.

This assignment of error is without merit.

ILLEGALLY LENIENT SENTENCE

The State argues the sentence imposed was illegally lenient because the trial court ignored all the testimony and evidence supporting the fact that the defendant’s blood alcohol was above .15 grams percent.

An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the sentence or by an appellate court on review. La. C.Cr.P. art. 882(A). A sentence may be reviewed as to its legality on the application of the defendant or of the State in an appealable case by appeal. La. C.Cr.P. art. 882(B)(1).

Whoever commits the crime of vehicular homicide shall be fined not less than two thousand dollars nor more than fifteen thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than two years nor more than thirty years. At least one year of the sentence of imprisonment shall be imposed without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. If the operators blood-alcohol concentration is 0.15 percent or more by weight based upon grams of alcohol per one hundred cubic centimeters of blood, then at least five years of the sentence of 114imprisonment shall be imposed without benefit of probation parole, or suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 14:32.1(B) (prior to amendment by 2006 La. Acts No. 294, § 1).

In sentencing the defendant, the court stated it was imposing the sentence “under the 0.08” because it “[did] not believe that that (presumably the more severe penalty when the operator’s blood-alcohol level is 0.15 percent or more by weight based upon grams of alcohol per one hundred cubic centimeters of blood) was fully proven at that time.” The State gave notice of intent to appeal the leniency of the sentence.

The sentencing transcript reflects that rather than ignore the evidence, the court carefully considered the evidence, but determined that sentencing under the stricter penalty provision of La. R.S. 14:32.1(B) was not warranted in this case. There was no abuse of discretion.

This assignment of error is without merit.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

PETTIGREW, J., concurs.

      . Trooper Shavers indicated a vehicle left a "yaw mark" when it was going sideways, rotating and slipping.


author: DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., Judge. LOVE, J.,

text:
    Elonda EALEM, et al. v. PREVOST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.
    No. 2008-C-0064.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2008.

      Rene J. Pfefferle, Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, Baton Rouge, La., for De-fendanWRelator.
    Richard A. Tonry, Michael C. Ginart, Jr., Kim C. Jones, Cullen A. Tonry, Jeremy K. Lee, Law Office of Tonry & Ginart, LLC, Chalmette, Louisiana, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
    (Court composed of Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., and Judge TERRI F. LOVE).
   DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., Judge.

| j Relator, West Ascension Parish Hospital Service District d/b/a Prevost Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “relator” or “Prevost”), seeks review of a judgment signed on December 17, 2007, which denied its exception of improper venue.

FACTS

Plaintiffs, Elonda Ealem, administrator of the Succession of Herbert Ealem, Sr., Herbert Ealem, Nila E. Canty and Latoya Ealem, are heirs of Herbert Ealem, Sr. (hereinafter referred to collectively as “plaintiffs”) who reside in Ascension Parish.

Plaintiff filed a wrongful death claim against relator and Dr. Glenn D. Schex-nayder for an alleged failure to diagnose Mr. Ealem’s stomach cancer. Specifically, on January 7, 2004, Herbert Ealem, Sr., sought medical treatment for stomach pains. Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Ealem first sought treatment from Dr. Glenn Schexnayder of Lake Ascension Physicians, who allegedly diagnosed him as having an “acid problem.” Plaintiffs aver that Mr. Ealem later sought treatment at relator’s facility in Ascension Parish and Charity Hospital in New Orleans. Allegedly, neither hospital diagnosed correctly Mr. Ealem’s stomach cancer. |2Eventually, doctors at Earl K. Long Hospital at Baton Rouge discovered Mr. Ealem’s stomach cancer. However, the diagnosis came too late and Mr. Ealem died while hospitalized at Touro Infirmary in New Orleans.

Plaintiffs brought suit against the present defendants on October 20, 2006, in Orleans Parish. Relator first filed an exception of improper venue in late 2006, wherein it alleged that venue would only be proper in Ascension Parish. Relator allegedly claimed that of all the named defendants it was the only hospital service district as defined by La. R.S. 46:1072 and that suit could only be brought in Ascension Parish, its domicile, by virtue of La. R.S. 13:5104. Plaintiffs allege that they filed an opposition memorandum to relator’s 2006 exception wherein they pointed out that Charity Hospital, a co-defendant at the time, was also a hospital service district and that venue was proper in Orleans Parish under the ancillary venue rule as discussed in Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hospital, 97-1997 (La.7/8/98), 714 So .2d 715.

Charity Hospital was subsequently dismissed from the case, and relator filed a second exception of improper venue in November 2007. The parties argued the merits of relator’s second exception on December 7, 2007. The trial court denied the exception and signed a judgment on December 17, 2007, which memorialized its ruling. Thereafter, Relator sought writs from this Court. On April 18, 2004, this Court denied Relator’s writ finding:

La. R.S. 46:1063 is not an exclusive venue provision that supersedes La. R.S. 13:5104(B). Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim can proceed in Orleans Parish because the decedent died in Orleans Parish, and La. R.S. 13:5104(B) provides that venue in a suit against a political subdivision is proper if brought in a parish in which the cause of action arose. See Wharton v. Ridgell, 2005-0069, p. 6. (La.1/19/06), 922 So.2d 461, 464.

| ^Thereafter, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted Relator’s writ application and remanded the writ to this Court for briefing, argument and opinion. After hearing oral arguments, and reviewing the additional briefs, we hereby deny the writ application for the following reasons.

DISCUSSION

Relator argues that the trial court erred when it failed to find that Ascension Parish is the only proper venue for plaintiffs’ suit. Specifically, relator grounds its case on the application of La. R.S. 46:1063 to the facts of the case. Specifically, La. R.S. 46:1063 states:

The police jury creating a hospital service district, with corporate powers, shall designate the domicile of such corporation, at which domicile it shall be sued and service of citation made on the director, and in his absence, upon the chairman of the commission, and in his or their absences, then upon the vice chairman of the commission; provided that in fixing the domicile of the district the police jury shall at all times fix the same at some place within the district.

Relator contends La. R.S. 46:1063 is a specific statute which provides an exclusive venue provision. Thus, relator asserts that it can only be sued in district court in Ascension Parish because it is a hospital service district domiciled in Ascension Parish.

Plaintiffs argued to the trial court that while La. R.S. 46:1063 provides the general venue rule for hospital service districts, La. R.S. 13:5104(B) indicates that venue is proper in New Orleans. Specifically, La. R.S. 13:5104(B) provides:

All suits filed against a political subdivision of the state or against an officer or employee of a political subdivision for conduct arising out of the discharge of his official duties or within the course and scope of his employment shall be instituted before the district court of the judicial district in which the political subdivision is located or in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises.

LPlaintiffs assert that the foregoing provision is applicable to their case because: 1) relator is a political subdivision of the state pursuant to La. R.S. 46:1064(A); and 2) their wrongful death cause of action arose in Orleans Parish because the decedent died while at Charity Hospital in New Orleans. Further, plaintiffs cited to this Court’s opinion in McDaniel v. Reed, 613 So.2d 758 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), for the proposition that La. C.C.P. art. 73, which concerns proper venue among solidary ob-ligors, is an applicable exception to La. R.S. 46:1063. As previously noted, the trial court denied relator’s exception, thus finding presumably that venue is proper in Orleans Parish.

A review of the law and jurisprudence reveals that the present issue has not been addressed squarely by this Court. At the outset, it should be noted that plaintiffs are correct when they assert that La. R.S. 13:5104(B) is applicable to this case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that the use of the word “shall” in La. R.S. 13:5104(B) “indicates a legislative intent that a single political subdivision can be sued only in one of two specified parishes and that no other exceptions are applicable.” Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hospital, 1997-1997, p. 5 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 715, 718. Further, in Colvin v. Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board, 2006-1104, pp. 10-11 (La.1/17/07), 947 So.2d 15, 22, the Supreme Court interpreted La. R.S. 13:5104(A), which applies to the state and its agencies, and held:

We find that suits against the state or state agencies are not governed by the general venue provisions and exceptions |fifound in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 42 and 71 through 85. Instead, the general provisions for the state or state agencies are found at La. R.S. 13:5104(A), and this general venue provision governs, unless a more specific venue governing a specific state agency is found elsewhere in the Revised Statutes.

An examination of La. R.S. 13:5104 reveals that, with the exception of the word shall and the inclusion of language covering officers and employees of state agencies, subsection (B) is essentially identical to subsection (A). Thus, the jurisprudence indicates that suits against political subdivisions of the state, such as hospital districts, are not governed by the general venue provisions and exceptions found in the Code of Civil Procedure. Rather, the Supreme Court has indicated that La. R.S. 13:5104(B) is the general venue provision governing suits against political subdivisions unless a more specific venue provision is found elsewhere in the statutes.

Therefore, this Court is now tasked with interpreting La. R.S. 46:1063. In determining the meaning of the statute, this Court looks to the applicable rules of statutory construction. The fundamental question in all cases of statutory interpretation is legislative intent. SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 2000-1695, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), 808 So.2d 294, 302. The rules of statutory construction are designed to ascertain and enforce the in tent of the legislature. Stogner v. Stogner, 1998-3044, p. 5 (La.7/7/99), 739 So.2d 762, 766. The meaning and intent of a law is determined by considering the law in its entirety and all other laws on the same subject matter and by placing a construction on the law that is consistent with the express terms of the law and with the obvious intent of the legislature in enacting the law. SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, 2000-1695 at p. 11, 808 So.2d at 302. A statute must be applied and interpreted in a manner that is ^logical and consistent with the presumed purpose and intent of the legislature. Id., 2000-1695 at p. 12, 808 So.2d at 302.

Further, it is presumed that every word, sentence, or provision in a law was intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is to be given to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were employed. Sultana Corporation v. Jewelers Mutual Insurance Company, 2003-0360, p. 9 (La.12/3/03), 860 So.2d 1112, 1119. As a result, courts are bound, if possible, to give effect to all parts of a statute and to construe no sentence, clause or word as meaningless and surplusage if a construction giving force to, and preserving, all words can legitimately be found. Colvin v. Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Bd., 2006-1104, p. 6 (La.1/17/07), 947 So.2d 15, 20. Finally, it is presumed that the legislature acts with full knowledge of well-[settled] principles of statutory construction. Sultana Corporation, 2003-0360 at p. 9, 860 So.2d at 1119.

In addition to the foregoing judicial principles which are guides to determine the intent of the legislature, La. R.S. 1:3 provides:

Words and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. Technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.
The word “shall” is mandatory and the word “may” is permissive.

The issue before this Court is whether, by using the phrase “shall,” the legislature intended for La. R.S. 46:1063 to be an exclusive venue provision that supersedes La. R.S. 13:5104(B). Relator argues that the article’s use of the word 17“shall” supports such a construction. However, with respect to venue statutes the Supreme Court has observed:

As this Court has recognized, “[i]n the context of venue, the permissive ‘may’ and the mandatory ‘shall’ have often been interchanged.” Underwood, supra at 717. “Indeed, Article 42, the general venue statute, employs the word “shall” to define the general venue for different types of defendants, yet is subject to the numerous statutory exceptions.” Id. (citing Gurtler, Hebert & Co. v. Marquette Casualty, Co., 145 So.2d 145 (La. App. 4 Cir.1962)) (holding that “may” in venue provision involving enforcing private works is mandatory); and see also 3 A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 67.04 (5th ed.1992) (noting that venue provisions should be liberally construed). Thus, in spite of the rule in La. R.S. 1:4 that “may” is permissive, that is clearly not always the case when it comes to venue statutes, which makes sense when we recognize that venue is basically a convenience factor as opposed to a jurisdictional factor, giving consideration to the particular action and the particular parties. Indeed, when multiple parties are involved, venue may be “mandatory” in a different court for each defendant, yet that does not mean that the case will not be ultimately heard in a court that is proper for one party but not the others under the concept of ancillary venue.
Colvin, 2006-1104, at pp. 7-8, 947 So.2d at 20.

Therefore, the mere use of the word “shall” does not necessarily indicate a legislative intent to make La. R.S. 46:1063 an exclusive venue statute.

This Court’s review of the statutory law reveals that statutes which have been interpreted to provide exclusive venue provisions for certain state agencies often contain language that is more specific than La. R.S. 46:1063. For example, La. R.S. 56:7 provides:

A. (1) The domicile of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission is and shall be in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, the Seafood Division, within the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, shall remain located in the city of New Orleans.
(2) Service of citation and other process directed to the commission shall be made by handing the citation or other | ¡process to the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. All suits in its behalf shall be brought in the name of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission.
B. Any person in interest who feels aggrieved by any rule, regulation, or other action adopted by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, including an action by one who seeks the closure or modification of any hunting season in any part of the state, may test its legality in a court of competent jurisdiction at the domicile of the commission. [Emphasis added.]

In Demolle v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 580 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), this Court interpreted the foregoing statute to mean that East Baton Rouge Parish is the exclusive venue for suits against the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that La. R.S. 13:5104(A) could also be used to establish venue. This Court reiterated its interpretation in Jurisich v. Seafood Div. of Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, 1995-2049 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/15/96), 676 So.2d 600, and the Third and Fifth Circuits followed this Court’s position in, respectively, Boothe v. Catahoula Parish Police Jury, 1999-1813 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/8/99), 768 So.2d 53, and State, Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries v. Vanacor, 1994-689 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/94), 648 So.2d 1078.

Further, in regards to suits against the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, La. R.S. 15:1177(A) provides in part:

Any offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision, excluding decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages, by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or a contractor operating a private prison facility rendered pursuant to any administrative remedy procedures under this Part may, within thirty days after receipt of the decision, seek judicial review of the decision only in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court or, if the offender is in the physical custody of the 1 ^sheriff in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the sheriff is located. [Emphasis added.]

Additionally, in regards to review of administrative decisions made by the Office of Risk Management La. R.S. 49:964(B) provides in part:

B. Proceedings for review may be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the parish in which the agency is located within thirty days after mailing of notice of the final decision by the agency or, if a rehearing is requested, within thirty days after the decision thereon. [Emphasis added.]

This Court interpreted the foregoing statute accordingly:

The Office of Risk Management is part of the Division of Administration, which is part of the Governor’s Office. See La. R.S. 89:1528; La. R.S. 36:4(B)(l)(a). Thus, suits seeking judicial review of decisions by the Office of Risk Management must be filed in East Baton Rouge (the parish where the Governor’s Office is located). The trial court erred when it denied the State’s exception of improper venue.
Hankton v. State, 2004-1307, p. 1 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/8/04), 885 So.2d 601.

A review of the foregoing statutes indicates that they all contain language that indicates a legislative intent to limit venue in suits against the specified state agencies to specific parishes. Aside from the word “shall,” which in the venue context does not necessarily indicate a mandatory legislative directive, La. R.S. 46:1063 contains no specific language similar to the foregoing statutes.

Additionally, this Court’s review of the jurisprudence reveals several cases of special significance to the present controversy. For example, in White v. Beauregard, 2001-1418 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/02), 809 So.2d 1275, reversed, 2002-0902 (La.6/14/02), 821 So.2d 481, a patient’s widow filed a wrongful death medical malpractice suit against a hospital service district, several doctors, and the | indoctors’ medical malpractice insurers regarding treatment that the patient received. The widow filed suit in the parish where the decedent died, although the hospital service district was domiciled in another parish. The hospital service district filed an exception of improper venue wherein it argued that La. R.S. 46:1063 applied to the facts of the case and thus suit could only be brought in the parish were the hospital service district was domiciled. The widow argued that suit was properly brought in the parish where the decedent died pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5104(B).

The trial court rejected the hospital service district’s exception. The hospital service district appealed and the Third Circuit held that venue was proper in the parish where the decedent died, even though the action was brought in a parish that was not the domicile of hospital service district. Significantly, the Third Circuit eschewed application of La. R.S. 13:5104(B) and instead applied La. C.C.P. art. 73 in order to hold that the hospital, as a solidary obli-gor, could be sued in the parish where another solidary obligor was located.

The hospital service district sought review of the Third Circuit’s decision and the Supreme Court granted writs, reversed and remanded. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court wrote:

In Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hospital, 97-1997, at p. 5 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 715, 718, we held that the use of the word “shall” in La.Rev.Stat. 13:5104(B) “indicates a legislative intent that a single political subdivision can be sued only in one of the two specified parishes and that no other exceptions are applicable.” The court of appeal therefore erred in applying La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 73 to this case. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court and court of appeal are reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court which is instructed to grant defendant’s motion of improper venue.
White v. Beauregard Memorial Hosp., 2002-0902, p. 1 (La.6/14/02), 821 So.2d 481.

InThus, the Supreme Court rejected the conclusion that La. C.C.P. art. 73 was applicable to venue disputes involving state agencies and reversed on the basis that La. R.S. 13:5104(B) is the sole applicable venue statute. What is quizzical about the Supreme Court’s reversal is the fact that the parish in which the widow brought suit was also the parish in which the patient died. Thus, it is arguable that venue was in fact proper pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5104(B) and the long-established principle that a wrongful death cause of action arises upon the death of the decedent and in the parish where the decedent is situated at the time of death. See McDaniel, 613 So.2d at 760. However, the Supreme Court’s White per curiam has the unintended effect of nullifying this principle.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court’s White per curiam has never been cited in connection with La. R.S. 46:1063. However, the White per cu-riam has been referenced in support of the proposition that La. R.S. 13:5104(B) is applicable to hospital service districts. For example, in Risener v. Hospital Service District No. One of The Parish of Terrebonne, 2001-2755 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/02), 834 So.2d 480, a doctor who had been sued for malpractice but denied malpractice coverage brought suit in Lafourche Parish, where the doctor practiced, against his former self-insured employer, the Hospital Service District Number One of Terre-bonne Parish. The hospital service district filed an exception of improper venue arguing that venue was proper only in Terrebonne Parish, its parish of domicile. The trial court denied the exception and the hospital service district appealed.

On appeal, the First Circuit stated:

Venue in an action against a hospital district is governed by La. R.S. 13:5104B. See La. R.S. 46:1064. La. R.S. 13:5104B provides for two possible venues: (1) the judicial | ^.district in which the political subdivision is located, and (2) the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises. A political subdivision can be sued only in one of the two specified parishes and no other exceptions are applicable. White v. Beauregard Memorial Hospital, 02-0902 (La.6/14/02), 821 So.2d 481.
Risener, 2001-2755, p. 3, 834 So.2d at 482.

Following this pronouncement, the First Circuit affirmed the trial court and held that venue was proper in Lafourche Parish because that is the parish where the physician’s cause of action arose. The Supreme Court denied writs. See Risener v. Hospital Service District No. One of The Parish of Terrebonne, 2003-0142 (La.3/21/03), 840 So.2d 536.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has recently addressed this issue in Black v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital, 994 So.2d 113 (La.App. 1 Cir.2008). Black involved a whistleblower action initiated by a former employee of a family medical clinic against the clinic’s owner, the St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and several of its employees. The issue was whether the trial court erred in sustaining the defendants’ declina-tory exception raising the objection of improper venue, thereby transferring the suit to St. Tammany Parish, where St. Tammany Parish Hospital is domiciled, when all of the alleged acts of retaliation and the plaintiffs ultimate termination occurred at her former place of employment in Washington Parish. In reversing the trial court judgment, the First Circuit applied La. R.S. 13:5104(B) and the rationale of Risener to find that venue is proper in Washington Parish, the parish where the cause of action arose.

In conclusion, this Court’s research reveals that the result reached by the Supreme Court in White, though apparently contrary to the stated facts and the law, suggests that relator’s proposed construction of La. R.S. 46:1063 might be proper. | ^Nevertheless, the balance of the analysis indicates that La. R.S. 46:1063 should not be interpreted as an exclusive venue provision that supersedes La. R.S. 13:5104(13). Specifically, the following factors militate against the relator’s proposed construction of La. R.S. 46:1063: 1) the Supreme Court has stated that the words “shall” and “may” are interchangeable in the context of venue statutes; 2) other statutes that have been interpreted to provide exclusive venue provisions for state agencies contain language that is more specific than that found in La. R.S. 46:1063; 3) in White, 2002-0902, p. 1, 821 So.2d 481, the Supreme Court applied La. R.S. 13:5104(B) to a venue dispute concerning a hospital service district; 4) citing to White, the First Circuit held in Risener, 2001-2755, p. 3, 834 So.2d at 482, that venue in an action against a hospital service district is governed by La. R.S. 13:5104(B); and 5) citing to Risener, the First Circuit held in Black, 994 So.2d 113, that venue is proper in parish where the cause of action arose.

Accordingly, this Court holds that La. R.S. 46:1063 is not an exclusive venue provision that supersedes La. R.S. 13:5104(B). Thus, plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim can proceed in Orleans Parish because the decedent died in Orleans Parish, and La. R.S. 13:5104(B) provides that venue in a suit against a political subdivision is proper if brought in a parish in which the cause of action arose. See Wharton, 2005-0069, p. 6. (La.1/19/06), 922 So.2d at 464. Therefore, we hereby deny relator’s writ application.

WRIT DENIED.

LOVE, J., Concurs and Assigns Reasons.

LOVE, J.,

Concurs and Assigns Reasons.

hi respectfully concur with the majority’s denial of relator’s application for writ. However, I write separately to address the rationale for the conclusion that Orleans Parish remains a proper venue for suit as to relator, which is not domiciled in Orleans Parish.

Relator argues that whereas there were originally two political subdivision defendants in the suit (Prevost Memorial Hospital and Charity Hospital), because it is the only remaining hospital service district in the suit, its Ascension Parish domicile is the appropriate venue. However, I find that Orleans Parish continues to be one of the two appropriate venues delineated in La. R.S. 13:5104(B).

While the general venue rule provided in La. R.S. 46:1063 requires that a hospital service district be sued at in the parish in which it is domiciled, La. R.S. 13:5104(B) is an ancillary venue provision, which provides:

All suits filed against a political subdivision of the state or against an officer or employee of a political subdivision for conduct arising out of the discharge of his official duties or within the course and scope of his employment shall be instituted before the district court of the judicial district in which the political subdivision is located or in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises. (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, in Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hospital, 97-1997, pp. 5-6 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 715, 717-718, the Louisiana Supreme Court espoused thejgprinciple that a single political subdivision can be sued only in one of two parishes according to this ancillary venue provision as follows:

Nevertheless, the fact that the Legislature in 1985 expressly deleted the word “may” and substituted the word “shall” in Section 5104 B indicates a legislative intent that a single political subdivision can be sued only in one of the two specified parishes and that no other exceptions are applicable. When a single political subdivision is the only defendant, the choice of venues provided by Section 5104 B is logical and consistent with the legislative intent that a political subdivision generally must be sued at its “home base” or in the parish which gave rise to the cause of action. And even when a political subdivision is one of several defendants, that legislative intent arguably is still applicable, especially when a parish of proper venue under Section 5104 B is also proper venue for the other defendants. However, when two political subdivisions located in different parishes are joined as defendants and alleged to be joint or solidary obligors as to the same transaction or occurrence, additional policy considerations enter into the determination of legislative intent. (Emphasis added.)

Underwood, 97-1997, pp. 5-6, 714 So.2d at 717-718.

Further, as to policy considerations, “[vjenue is basically a convenience factor

as opposed to a jurisdictional factor, giving consideration to the particular action and the particular parties.” Colvin v. Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Bd., 06-1104, pp. 7-8 (La.1/17/07), 947 So.2d 15, 20. “When multiple parties are involved, while venue may be ‘mandatory’ in a different court for each defendant, that does not mean that the case will not be ultimately heard in a court that is proper for one party but not the others under the concept of ancillary venue.” Colvin., 06-1104, p. 8, 947 So.2d 15, 20-21. Ancillary venue provisions such as La. R.S. 13:5104(B) “allow such claims to be tried together for reasons of judicial economy and efficiency, even though venue is not proper technically for one claim or one party.” Unde'rwood, 97-1997, p. 8, 714 So.2d 715, 719.

In the instant matter, Orleans Parish was proper in the original suit for two reasons: 1) Charity Hospital is a hospital service district domiciled in Orleans Parish; and 2) plaintiffs instituted a wrongful | adeath action, which accrued at place of death of Mr. Ealam, Orleans Parish, the parish that gave rise to the wrongful death action. However, once Charity Hospital was dismissed from the suit, the domicile of Charity Hospital in its capacity as a hospital service district ceased to be an issue in the determination of whether grounds to support proper venue in Orleans Parish remained. Nevertheless, Orleans Parish continued to be a proper venue as to the plaintiffs’ wrongful death action.

I conclude that the cause of action for venue purposes arose in Orleans Parish because that is where the operative facts occurred that support plaintiffs’ entitlement to recovery for wrongful death. Under Louisiana jurisprudence, given that Mr. Ealem’s death occurred in Orleans Parish, plaintiffs’ cause of action for wrongful death under La. R.S. 13:5104(B) arose in Orleans Parish. Wharton v. Ridgell, 05-0069, pp. 7-8 (La.1/19/06), 922 So.2d 461 at 464, 465. This conclusion is a direct result of plaintiffs’ injuries for wrongful death not arising until the time of Mr. Ealam’s death. Id. Thus, although only one hospital service district domiciled in Ascension Parish remains a party to the suit, and Charity Hospital of Orleans Parish domicile was dismissed, suit is still proper as to relator in Orleans Parish.

      . See Wharton v. Ridgell, 2005-0069 (La.1/19/06), 922 So.2d 461, for the principle that a wrongful death cause of action arises upon the death of the decedent and in the parish where the decedent is situated at the time of death. Thus, the Supreme Court in Wharton held that a wrongful death action against a political subdivision under La. R.S. 13:5104(B) is proper in the parish where the decedent died even though all wrongful conduct occurred in another parish.

      . Note, however, that the foregoing statute has been held unconstitutional insofar as it applies to tort actions. See Pope v. State, 99-2559 (La.6/29/01), 792 So.2d 713.