author: BENTON, J. THOMAS, J.,

text:
    Wesley WEBSTER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. BODY DYNAMICS, INC. d/b/a BDI Pharmaceuticals, The Pantry, Inc. f/k/a Lil’ Champ Food Stores, Inc. and Nittany Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
    No. 1D08-5114.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Feb. 24, 2010.
    Tracy Raffles Gunn of Gunn Appellate Practice, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
    David B. Weinstein and Kimberly S. Mello, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Body Dynamics, Inc.; Robert E. Biasotti of Carlton Fields, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appel-lee/Cross-Appellant The Pantry, Inc.; and Elliot H. Scherker and Brigid F. Cech Samóle, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Nittany Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
   BENTON, J.

Wesley Webster, the plaintiff below, appeals a judgment exonerating all defendants in this negligent-failure-to-warn and products liability case. He argues the trial court erred in denying a pretrial motion seeking to put before the jury a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule banning all “dietary supplements” containing ephedrine alkaloids, adopted some six years after a stroke felled him. The trial court excluded the FDA rule, and perhaps other evidence of the ban on ephedrine in dietary supplements, on grounds that the ban had no bearing on Mr. Webster’s claims for damages for antecedent injuries. Exclusion may have been error but we affirm because any such error was harmless. Our disposition moots the cross-appeal.

Mr. Webster sued the manufacturers and/or distributors as well as the retail seller of Super Minis/Mini Thin Naturals, a “dietary supplement” containing ephedrine, alleging that they were legally responsible for his stroke. Dr. Triggs, one of the physicians Mr. Webster — at the time of the stroke, a 26-year-old university student — called at trial as a witness testified that sometimes young people have strokes for unexplained reasons. Another of the plaintiffs medical experts, Dr. Na-deau, testified that forty percent of the time young people suffer strokes, the cause is never identified. The jury apparently concluded this was one such case.

The stroke took place on June 6, 1998, after, Mr. Webster testified, he had ingested two Super Mini/Mini Thin Natural pills, one between six o’clock and seven o’clock the evening before, and one a few hours after that. He testified that taking two pills at such intervals had been his custom approximately two days every week over the previous four months. But neither Mr. Webster’s blood nor his urine yielded any evidence of ephedrine present in his system at any pertinent time. A drug profile performed on the blood sample taken when he was admitted to the hospital on June 6, 1998, and a more comprehensive toxicology profile conducted on June 10, 1998, revealed no sign of ephedrine. The jury returned a defense ver-diet, finding that no defendant had placed any ephedrine-containing dietary supplement on the market “with a defect which was a legal cause of damage” to Mr. Webster.

Before trial, Mr. Webster’s trial counsel had asked the court to take judicial notice of the FDA rule “adulterating” dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, issued by the FDA in 2004, six years after Mr. Webster’s stroke. See Final Rule Declaring Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids Adulterated Because They Present an Unreasonable Risk, 69 Fed. Reg. 28,6788 (Feb. 11, 2004) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pt. 119). In the rule — 135 pages in length — the FDA premises the adulteration on its “conclusion that the risks of these products outweigh their benefits,” explaining:

We are using this rulemaking authority for dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids because ... it is more efficient to declare these products adulterated as a category than to remove them from the market in individual enforcement actions in which we would have to establish, for each individual product, that they present a significant or unreasonable risk.
The government’s burden of proof for ‘unreasonable risk’ can be met with any science-based evidence of risk and does not require a showing that the substance has actually caused harm in particular cases.

Id. at 28,6794, 28,6798. The trial judge declined to take judicial notice of the rule and reserved ruling on its admissibility “with the understanding” that under no circumstance would he allow the entire 135-page document into evidence. The trial judge reasoned that the FDA rule in its entirety was “way more than any jury in this particular case even needs to begin to understand.... ” At trial, plaintiffs counsel asked the judge to “reconsider one aspect” of his pretrial ruling, arguing the FDA ban was relevant to show that the dietary supplement Mr. Webster allegedly ingested was unsafe and ineffective. The trial judge did not, however, alter his ruling.

We assume for purposes of decision that counsel’s request that the trial court “reconsider one aspect” of its ruling regarding the FDA ban on ephedrine in dietary supplements is properly viewed as a request for leave to question Dr. Parisian (an FDA employee in charge of verifying that clinical trials had demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of products before they were marketed) in order to establish the fact of the FDA ban (even though no proffer was made). On this assumption, the trial court arguably abused its discretion by denying the request to prove that all dietary supplements containing ephedrine were later taken off the market. As the dissent explains, evidence of a post-accident recall may be admissible in strict products liability cases to prove that the product was defective when it left the possession of the manufacturer.

But Dr. Parisian testified at length about the FDA’s investigation of dietary supplements containing ephedrine during the period before Mr. Webster’s stroke. In 1993, the jury learned, the Commissioner of the FDA testified before Congress regarding serious adverse incidents associated with the use of ephedra, including stroke. In 1995, after receiving reports of injuries associated with dietary supplements containing ephedrine, the FDA conducted a public meeting to discuss the risks of ephedra. In 1996, the FDA issued a press release that listed the names of dietary supplements containing ephedra and warned of the risks associated with them. In 1997, in the wake of reports of young people suffering serious adverse events such as stroke and heart attack after consuming dietary supplements containing ephedra, the FDA proposed to adulterate dietary supplements containing more than eight milligrams of ephedrine alkaloids per pill. Manufacturers failed to heed the FDA’s warnings and continued marketing dietary supplements containing in excess of eight milligrams per phi. Dr. Parisian informed the jury of this history in some detail, and testified to her opinion that a dietary supplement with more than eight milligrams of ephedrine alkaloids was “unreasonably dangerous for a consumer.”

On appeal, Mr. Webster asserts the judgment must nevertheless be reversed because the jury did not learn that the FDA subsequently banned all dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. But any error in this regard was harmless under the standard for harmless error applicable in civil cases. Reversal is unwarranted in a civil case unless the appellant demonstrates that “it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached if the error had not been committed.” In re Commitment of DeBolt, 19 So.3d 335, 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Damico v. Lundberg, 379 So.2d 964, 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). Any error here in precluding Dr. Parisian’s testifying to the fact the FDA banned dietary supplements containing ephedrine was harmless on at least two bases.

The jury was asked to determine whether the defendants had marketed an ephedrine-laden dietary supplement “[1] with a defect [2] which was a legal cause of damage” to the plaintiff. If the jury answered in the negative because it found Super Minis/Mini Thin Naturals were not “a legal cause of damage” to Mr. Webster because he had ingested no detectable quantity of ephedrine in the pertinent time period, the trial court’s failure to admit evidence of the FDA rule — which arguably tended to prove a defect, but not ingestion or other legal causation of the stroke Mr. Webster suffered — could not logically have affected the verdict. The jury may well have concluded that there was no convincing proof that ephedrine was in the plaintiffs system when he suffered the stroke.

In any event, Dr. Parisian’s testimony conveyed in great detail the health and safety concerns that underlay the FDA’s proposal to adulterate dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids in excess of eight milligrams per pill, and ultimately led to the ban of dietary supplements (but not other over-the-counter medications) containing any ephedrine alkaloid at all. Dr. Parisian testified unequivocally that manufacturers continued to market dietary supplements containing ephedrine at levels not recognized as safe and effective by the FDA. She opined in no uncertain terms that the pills Mr. Webster allegedly consumed were “unreasonably dangerous.” The testimony that strokes had been associated with ephedrine use was uncontro-verted.

Dr. Parisian’s testimony explained to the jury the reasoning behind the eventual ban of dietary supplements containing ephedrine, and the entire rationale eventually set forth in the text of the rule effecting the ban. The appellant has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that proof of the ban itself would have led to a different result.

Affirmed.

KAHN, J., concurs; THOMAS, J., dissents with opinion.

THOMAS, J.,

Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recalled and banned ephedrine-alkaloid containing products in 2004, six years after Appellant allegedly ingested such a product. Without question, the trial court erred as a matter of law in its view that this evidence was not relevant to prove that Appellees had notice of the dangers of these products. Notice is not an element of a strict liability claim, and this was not a basis to exclude the evidence. Thus, on this basis alone, this court could reverse, utilizing the de novo standard of review regarding evidentiary trial decisions based on questions of law. Shands Teaching Hosp. v. Dunn, 977 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Even applying the abuse of discretion standard, however, the trial court reversibly erred in excluding the evidence.

A mandatory recall and ban is relevant evidence and demonstrates a product’s design defect, even where the recall and ban is issued after the date of the product’s manufacture. Section 90.401, Florida Statutes, defines relevant evidence as “evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” In 2004, the FDA reported that ephedrine-containing products were so dangerous that public safety required a ban and recall of that class of products. Thus, the ban is relevant to show that the Super Mini’s allegedly ingested by Appellant, which contained ephedrine alkaloids in 1998, had a defect in design. The 2004 ban does not conclusively prove that the products used in 1998 were in fact defective, but it does tend to show that ephedrine alkaloids posed a significant threat. I note that the FDA’s report was not an after-the-fact determination based on new evidence of danger, but a determination that the products had to be recalled.

The date of the recall and ban is only one aspect of the value of the evidence, which goes to its weight, not its admissibility. The trial court reversibly erred by depriving Appellant of the opportunity to present evidence that the product was investigated and then recalled. See Brantley v. Snapper Power Equip., 665 So.2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see generally Hessen v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 915 F.2d 641, 648-49 (11th Cir.1990) (trial court properly admitted recalled evidence where plaintiffs automobile was not included in recall, but its defective condition was same defect identified in recall); Rose v. Figgie Int'l, Inc., 229 Ga.App. 848, 495 S.E.2d 77, 84 (1997); Stinson v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 904 S.W.2d 428, 432 (Mo.App.1995) (warning labels provided after manufacturing date relevant to show “whether [product was] unreasonably dangerous, and thus defectively designed ... at the time of [the] injury.”).

The case of Toole v. McClintock, 999 F.2d 1430 (11th Cir.1993), is distinguishable and unpersuasive. There, the district court admitted into evidence an FDA report which contained proposed findings that breast implants can cause cancer or autoimmune disease. Id. at 1433-34. Here, by contrast, the FDA banned all products containing ephedrine alkaloids. Had the FDA’s 1997 proposed rule regarding ephedrine alkaloids been admitted into evidence, Toole could be persuasive.

As to the other reasons cited by the trial court, none compelled exclusion of the evidence. Appellee BDI Pharmaceutical’s arguments that the FDA’s 2004 report banning ephedrine alkaloids did not specifically address Super Mini’s also goes to the weight and value of the evidence, not its admissibility. Had the trial court admitted the 2004 report, BDI could argue to the jury that the ban utilized a cost-benefit analysis and made no determination regarding any specific product. Certainly, BDI could inform the jury of the FDA’s conclusion that it had no proof “that any substance has actually caused harm in particular cases.”

A trial should be based on competing theories, with relevant and admissible evidence heard and considered by the jury. Here, the trial court abused its discretion by not permitting the jury to consider relevant evidence, based on an incorrect legal determination. Contrary to the trial court’s finding under section 90.403, there was no adequate showing that unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value. Because the trial court incorrectly determined the relevance of the evidence, it could not effectively weigh any prejudice the evidence could create vis a vis its probative value; thus, the section 90.403 analysis was compromised. The evidence was, in fact, relevant, and its prejudicial value must be considered in that context. Cf. Marchina v. State, 702 So.2d 1369, 1369-70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (where evidence has “little legitimate probative value,” court should exclude evidence if substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice).

The exclusion of this evidence left the jury with the incorrect impression that the ephedrine alkaloid products remained available to the public even after the FDA’s investigation resulted in a proposed rule. The 2004 ban was so inextricably intertwined with other evidence that its exclusion left a false and misleading impression that, in my view, meets the test for harmful error. See generally City of Ocala v. Red Oak Farm, Inc., 673 So.2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (harmfulness of evi-dentiary ruling highlighted by vigorous trial advocacy in support of ruling reversed by appellate court). The evidence at issue here was relevant, and its exclusion seriously prejudiced Appellant’s opportunity to fairly present its own case for the jury to consider. I would reverse and remand for a new trial on this issue.

      . Over-the-counter medicines for asthma and certain prescription medicines containing ephedrine are still on the market. The recommended maximum daily allowance for the asthma over-the-counter medicine is three times as much as Mr. Webster testified he ingested.

      . The product in question was allegedly purchased at a convenience store owned by The Pantry, Inc. f/k/a Lil’ Champ Food Stores, Inc.

      . Super Minis were manufactured and/or distributed by both Body Dynamics, Inc. d/b/a BDI Pharmaceuticals, and Nittany Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

      . Mini Thin Naturals were manufactured and/or distributed by Body Dynamics, Inc. d/b/a BDI Pharmaceuticals.

      . Ephedrine alkaloids occur naturally in a species of ephedra, the Chinese herb ma huang, but can also be synthesized.

      . Mr. Webster’s recitation of events was corroborated by his friend Justin Blow, who testified that the day before Mr. Webster’s stroke, the two men ingested ephedra pills in the late afternoon or early evening. Each pill contained 25 milligrams of ephedrine.

      . Dr. Miller testified that the toxicology profile detects ephedrine. Dr. Miller explained that sympathomimetics, the class of drugs to which ephedrine belongs, are typically detectable for two to three days, but with prolonged, heavy use, may be detectable for up to seven days.

      . The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides that a dietary supplement "shall be deemed to be adulterated” when it “presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury under (i) conditions of use recommended or suggested in labeling, or (ii) if no conditions of use are suggested or recommended in the labeling, under ordinary conditions of use.” 21 U.S.C. § 342(f)(1)(A) (2008) (boldface omitted). The FDA "adulterated” the dietary supplements in the sense of deeming them adulterated.

      . The FDA justified the rule on the basis of efficiency and made no finding that Super Minis/Mini Thin Naturals were "defective” or dangerous. The FDA allowed ephedrine-containing products other than dietary supplements to remain on the market.

      . In Hessen in re Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 915 F.2d 641, 648-49 (11th Cir.1990), the Eleventh Circuit addressed the admissibility of a subsequent recall of Jaguar Cars which did not include the vehicle involved in the accident at issue. The court ruled that, "the district court properly held that if Allstate could show that the defect alleged in the [plaintiff's] vehicle was the same as the defect involved in the recall, then evidence of the Jaguar recall campaign would be admitted for jury consideration." Id. at 649. Likewise, in Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Carpenter, 350 So.2d 360, 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the Second District held that while evidence of a subsequent government recall was not admissible to show that a defect existed in the plaintiff's particular motorcycle, it was admissible "to show that the defect existed in the hands of the manufacturer” (citations omitted).

        See also Rose v. Figgie Int’l, Inc., 229 Ga.App. 848, 495 S.E.2d 77, 84 (1997) (evidence of post-accident product recall relevant to show that defect in product was present when product left manufacturer’s hands); Pesce v. Gen. Motors Corp., 939 F.Supp. 160, 165 (N.D.N.Y.1996) (denying defendant's motion to preclude evidence of post-accident recall letter where plaintiff established seat belt defect through independent evidence); Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Daniel, 244 Ga. 284, 260 S.E.2d 20, 22-23 (1979) (evidence of Congressionally-mandated post-accident recall relevant on question of whether defect was present in car when it left manufacturer, and admissible so long as there was independent evidence to establish that particular product suffered from same defect); Longenecker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 594 F.2d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir.1979) (evidence of post-accident recall letter stating "engine-mount separation would occur, if at all, during rapid acceleration” relevant to show a flaw in the engine mounts, even though accident caused by separation of mounts did not occur during acceleration); Manieri v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 151 N.J.Super. 422, 376 A.2d 1317, 1322 (1977) (post-accident recall letters relevant to show whether the defect arose while the vehicle was in the defendants’ control); Barry v. Manglass, 55 A.D.2d 1, 389 N.Y.S.2d 870, 874-77 (N.Y.App.Div.1976) (post-accident recall letters mandated by federal statute relevant to show a defect existed in the product at the time it left the manufacturer, and their relevancy outweighed any possible prejudice); Fields v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 555 P.2d 48, 57-58 (Okla.1976) (recall letter which plaintiffs had not received prior to accident admissible to show whether defect existed when product left manufacturer).

      . The pill Mr. Webster allegedly ingested in 1998 contained 25 milligrams of ephedrine alkaloids.

      . Under the "tipsy coachman" rule, when the "trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, [that decision] will be upheld [on appeal] if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.” Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644-45 (Fla.1999).
      Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2008), affords substantial discretion to trial courts to exclude otherwise relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” See Harris v. State, 449 So.2d 892, 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) ("[A] large measure of discretion rests in the trial judge to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by any of the enumerated reasons." (quoting C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 403.1 at 62-63 (1977))). We nevertheless decline to affirm on the alternative ground that the trial court appropriately declined Mr. Webster's request to admit the 135-page FDA rule on grounds it was "way more than any jury in this particular case even needs to begin to understand
      Affirmance on this ground would be inappropriate, even though "[a]s a general rule, a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed, absent an abuse of discretion.” McCray v. State, 919 So.2d 647, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citations omitted). The weighing contemplated by section 90.403 is for the trial court, in the first instance, and here the trial court ruled the subsequent ban altogether irrelevant, so that no weighing took place below.
      On the other hand, but for this error, the trial court would necessarily have reached the question whether the probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice and might have excluded the 135-page rule on that basis. The appellant has not, at least, demonstrated otherwise.

      . Dr. Olney did testify, however, that it had not been proven that ephedrine could cause strokes.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Westmore Samuel GRANDISON, Appellant, v. PARKER MOBILE HOME SERVICE, INC. and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
    No. 4D09-2764.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Feb. 24, 2010.

      Westmore Samuel Grandison, Riviera Beach, pro se.
    Louis A. Gutierrez, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee Unemployment Appeals Commission.
    No appearance for appellee Parker Mobile Home Service, Inc.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Rubido v. Brinks, Inc., 601 So.2d 1298, 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (affirming denial of benefits due to misconduct where, even though coworker told employee that employee had permission to act contrary to company policy, employee should not have acted in reliance on coworker’s statement without management’s written permission).

MAY, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ„ concur.


text:
    Larry THOMAS, Michael DeLong, William Fletcher, and Edward Hunter, Appellants, v. Douglas MILLER, Shawn Miller, John Yasso, and Ed Bieluch in his official capacity as former Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Appellees.
    No. 4D09-3685.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Feb. 24, 2010.
    Fred H. Gelston of Fred H. Gelston, P.A., West Palm Beach, for • appellants.
    James K. Green of James K. Green, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees Douglas Miller and Shawn Miller.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Murray v. Rosati, 929 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.


author:
GUIDRY, Justice.
     KNOLL, J., WEIMER, Justice,

text:
    Charles C. FOTI, Jr., Attorney General for the State of Louisiana v. Sarah HOLLIDAY.
    No. 2009-C-0093.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 30, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 2010.

      James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, David Alexander Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, for applicant.
    Law Offices of Ronald R. Johnson, Ronald R. Johnson, Baton Rouge, for respondent.
   GUIDRY, Justice.

| ,We granted certiorari in this matter to address the issue raised in the exception of no cause of action subject of these proceedings. The peremptory exception poses the legal question of whether the State of Louisiana may recover reimbursement of salary and benefits paid to a former employee for the period the employee simultaneously held two full-time governmental positions in violation of Louisiana’s Dual Officeholding and Dual Employment Law, La. R.S. 42:61, et seq., (hereafter, “DODEL”), when suit was filed after the employee vacated one of her positions. For the reasons that follow, we find reimbursement is barred when the prohibited dual employment is terminated prior to the filing of a petition seeking relief under the DODEL. Accordingly, the court of appeal’s ruling reversing the trial court and granting the exception of no cause of action filed by the defendant, Sarah Holli-day, is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 17, 2005, Sarah Holliday commenced full-time employment with the United States Small Business Administration’s Disaster Assistance Office. At the |2time, Ms. Holliday was already employed on a full-time basis as a judicial assistant and deputy clerk for the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge (hereafter, “19th JDC”). Ms. Holliday worked simultaneously for both unrelated governmental agencies until February 15, 2006, the date she resigned from her 19th JDC position.

On March 31, 2006, the State of Louisiana, through the Office of the Attorney General, (hereafter, “the State”), instituted summary proceedings against Ms. Holliday pursuant to La. R.S. 42:65 of the DODEL, which provides in pertinent part:

A. The attorney general, a district attorney, or any citizen of the state of Louisiana may by summary process petition for a declaratory judgment against a person alleged to be holding incompatible offices or employments or holding a combination of offices or employments prohibited in this Part....
B. If the court declares that the person is holding offices or employments in violation of this Part, the court shall declare the office with the term first to expire or one of the employments vacant and shall enjoin the person from further carrying out the duties of that office or employment; however, a person holding an elective office shall continue to serve and perform the duties of that office until his successor has qualified.
C. The court may order the reimbursement to the appropriate governmental body of all pay or other compensation and all allowances, including all allowances and payments for travel and other expenses which have been received by the official or employee in the position vacated as provided in Subsection B hereof, during a period of time not to exceed six months preceding the filing of suit for declaratory judgment....

Specifically, through its Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Reimbursement, the State seeks pursuant to Subsection (A) a judgment declaring Ms. Holliday engaged in conduct prohibited under La. R.S. 42:63 by virtue of her simultaneous retention |sof incompatible governmental positions. Based on such a declaration, the State requests under Subsection (C) of La. R.S. 42:65 reimbursement of $16,158.50, representing the salary and related benefits paid in connection with her judicial post for the period of her dual employment.

In addition to filing an answer to the petition denying a violation of the DO-DEL, Ms. Holliday filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action urging the State is barred from pursuing its suit and obtaining relief under La. R.S. 42:65. Applying a strict interpretation of La. R.S. 42:65, she advances any cause of action the State had under the DODEL became moot when she resigned from her state position. In support, Ms. Holliday contends the statute is couched in language that the wrongdoer must be engaged in the prohibited conduct at the time the litigation is instituted and the declaratory judgment is imposed. She relies on Subsection (A) of the provision, which provides that the State is afforded the right to file “a petition for a declaratory judgment against a person alleged to be holding incompatible offices or employments or holding a combination of offices or employments ...” (emphasis added). As to the issue of reimbursement, Ms. Holliday contends monetary recovery pursuant to Subsection (C) is exclusively conditioned on the judicial declaration imposed under Subsection (B). The latter provision provides for the issuance of an |4order requiring that one of the offices be vacated and the defendant enjoined from carrying out the related duties “[i]f the court declares that the person is holding offices or employment in violation of this Part ....” (emphasis added).

Following a hearing, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the State overruling the exception of no cause of action. The court concluded Ms. Holliday’s simultaneous holding of the incompatible full-time positions giving rise to the instant proceeding was adverse to the public’s interest and, thus, prohibited under La. R.S. 42:63(A). In the absence of citing statutory or jurisprudential support, the court determined it was within its discretion to order reimbursement pursuant to La. R.S. 42:65(C) for the violation. It assessed Ms. Holliday payment of $16,158.60, constituting the salary and related benefits paid during the tenure of her dual employment. Subsequently, the court denied Ms. Holliday’s request for a new trial.

The court of appeal reversed the trial court and granted Ms. Holliday’s peremptory exception. Foti v. Holliday, 08-0055 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/18/08), 4 So.3d 823, reh’g denied (12/15/08). While the court did not contest the trial court’s finding that Ms. Holliday’s dual employment violated La. R.S. 42:63(A), it applied a strict interpretation of La. R.S. 42:65 to qualify the State’s claim was only actionable while Ms. Holli-day was engaged in the misconduct. The court reasoned Ms. Holliday’s resignation from her judicial position prior to the filing of the State’s petition precluded the commencement of proceedings under Subsection (A) of La. R.S. 42:65 because she was no longer simultaneously “holding” the employment positions prohibited under the DODEL. Further, the court of appeal recognized, in |sthe absence of an action properly commenced under Subsection (A), relief could not be rendered through the issuance of a judicial declaration directing the termination of the dual employment and reimbursement pursuant to Sections (B) and (C), respectively. Based on its reasoning, the court of appeal determined the State failed to articulate a cause of action under La. R.S. 42:65 because the petition did not allege Ms. Holliday was holding offices or employments prohibited by the DODEL at the time suit was filed. The State filed an application for rehearing, which was denied by the appellate court.

We granted certiorari to review the correctness of the court of appeal’s ruling reversing the district court’s denial of the exception of no cause of action. Foti v. Holliday, 09-0093 (La.4/3/09), 6 So.3d 779. The Court has no objection to the lower courts’ conclusions that Ms. Holliday’s dual employment subject of these proceedings is violative of La. R.S. 42:63. Our review is premised on the narrow issue of whether the State has a viable cause of action for reimbursement under La. R.S. 42:65(C) when the prohibited conduct was terminated prior to the filing of the petition under the DODEL.

APPLICABLE LAW

Exception of No Cause of Action

The peremptory exception of no cause of action is designed to test the legal sufficiency of a petition by determining whether a party is afforded a remedy in law based on the facts alleged in the pleading. La. C.C.P. arts. 681 and 927; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., et al., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La.1993). All well-pleaded allegations of fact are accepted as true and correct, and all doubts are resolved in favor of sufficiency of the petition so as to afford litigants their day in court. La. C.C.P. art. 865; Kuebler v. Martin, 578 So.2d 113, 114 (La.1991). | fiThe burden of demonstrating that a petition fails to state a cause of action is upon the mover. Ramey v. DeCaire, 09-1299, p. 7 (La.3/19/04), 869 So.2d 114, 119.

The sufficiency of a petition subject of an exception of no cause of action is a question of law. Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 349. We are mindful that a de novo standard is applied to the review of legal questions, wherein this Court renders a judgment based on the record without deference to the legal conclusions of the lower courts. Cleco Evangeline, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 01-2162, p. 3 (La.4/3/02), 813 So.2d 351, 353.

Statutory Construction,

In addressing the sufficiency of the State’s petition, we must examine whether any statutory remedy is afforded to the State under the DODEL for Ms. Holli-day’s prohibited conduct. This inquiry turns on the proper interpretation of La. R.S. 42:65, which also involves a question of law. Id.

“[T]he paramount consideration in statutory construction is ascertainment of the legislative intent and the reason or reasons which prompted the Legislature to enact the law.” M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371, p. 13 (La.7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16, 27, citing State v. Johnson, 03-2993, p. 12 (La.10/19/04), 884 So.2d 568, 575. It is well established that “[t]he starting point for the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself.” Dejoie v. Medley, 08-2223 (La.5/5/09), 9 So.3d 826, 829. When a statute is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the provision is applied as written with no further interpretation made in search of the Legislature’s intent. Id.; La. C.C. art. 9; La. R.S. 1:4. In the event the language of a statute is susceptible of different meanings, the interpretation must best conform to the purpose of the law. La. C.C. art. 10. When analyzing legislative history, it is presumed the Legislature’s actions in crafting a law |7were knowing and intentional. M.J. Farms, Ltd., 07-2371 at pp. 13-14, 998 So.2d at 27. More particularly, this Court must assume the Legislature was aware of existing laws on the same subject, as well as established principles of statutory construction and the effect of their legislative acts. Id.

We now apply these criterion to address the merits of Ms. Holliday’s exception of no cause of action relative to whether the State is afforded a judicial remedy under La. R.S. 42:65.

DISCUSSION

Applying the threshold requirement of statutory construction, we turn to the language of the provision at issue. Dejoie, 08-2223, 9 So.3d at 829. A plain reading of La. R.S. 42:65 illustrates the statute is framed in language that the wrongdoer must be engaged in the conduct prohibited under La. R.S. 42:63 at the time the requested relief is rendered in favor of the plaintiff under Subsection (B) of La. R.S. 42:65. Logically, this encompasses the period when suit is filed. We rely on the critical wording in Subsection (A), which provides a summary process petition may only be filed against a person “alleged to be holding ” or “holding ” the simultaneous positions barred under the DODEL. Further, Subsection (B) allows for the issuance of a declaratory order terminating the dual employment “[i]f the court declares that the person is holding offices or employment in violation of this Part.” (emphasis added). While the State does not seek relief under Subsection (B) because the dual employment has already been terminated, Subsection (C) states that the reimbursement of salary and benefits is contingent on the imposition of a declaratory judgment pursuant to Subsection (B). Specifically, the Subsection (C) provides that “[t]he court may order the reimbursement to the appropriate governmental body of all pay or other compensation and all allowances, ... which have been received by Is the official or employee in the position vacated as provided in Subsection B hereof.” (emphasis added). Thus, based on our threshold inquiry, we agree with Ms. Holliday and the court of appeal that a strict application of La. R.S. 42:65 would support the dismissal of the State’s petition.

Although we conclude La. R.S. 42:65 is clear and unambiguous, we must next address whether the application of the provision as written leads to absurd consequences. La. C.C. art. 9; La. R.S. 1:4. Essentially, this warrants our consideration of the State’s primary objection that a strict application of the statute does not provide any penalty for a dual employment violation if the wrongdoer resigns from one position prior to the imposition of a declaratory judgment. Similarly, one of the two dissenting members of the appellate court panel characterizes the result from the majority’s interpretation of La. R.S. 42:65 as “illogical” insofar as it renders a court powerless to order reimbursement under Subsection (C) unless there is an order to vacate under Subsection (B). Moreover, he asserts the result is “absurd” in that it allows an employee’s resignation from one of the positions at any time after suit is filed, even up to the rendering of the judicial declaration. He reasons the court of appeal’s interpretation unjustly condones an employee’s manipulation of the judicial system in the absence of any accountability for the employee’s illegal actions.

In order to determine whether a strict application of La. R.S. 42:65 leads to a nonsensical result, we seek guidance from La. R.S. 42:61, which sets forth the 19purpose for which the DODEL was enacted. In pertinent part, Subsection (B) of La. R.S. 42:61 states that the DODEL was implemented “to maintain a high level of trust and confidence by the general citizenry in public officials, employees, and governmental decisions of the government of this state.” The court in Arceneaux v. Treen, 671 F.2d 128, 133 (5th Cir.1982) interpreted La. R.S. 42:61 as follows:

Although Louisiana has advanced a host of rationales for [La. R.S. 42:63]’s prohibitions on dual public employment, we need not look any further than the statute’s explicitly stated purposes in order to uphold the legitimacy of the state’s goals. [La. R.S. 42:61] states the purposes of the Act’s prohibitions. Restrictions on dual officeholding and public employment are not novel Louisiana is legitimately concerned with its citizens’ perceptions of public employment. The Louisiana statute is obviously aimed the widespread perception that public employment-whether in federal, state, or local government offices-is merely a sinecure and that it is intolerable to give persons two slices of the public pie.
⅜ * ⅜ * ⅜
It was also reasonable for Louisiana legislators to believe that dual low-level public sector employment creates an improper appearance of impropriety.... Id., 671 F.2d at 133-134 (citations omitted).

We note Subsection (A) of the provision articulates the two instances when the public’s trust and confidence is “impaired”: when a public “employee holds two or more public offices or public jobs which by their particular nature conflict with the duties and interests of each other ... [and] by the excessive accumulation of | ^governmental power resulting from holding two or more public offices or public jobs.” In emphasizing the factors impairing the public’s trust and confidence, the statutory language illustrates the Legislature’s motive in enacting the DODEL was to eliminate the existence of the threat posed by the inherent conflict and the intangible accrual of power stemming from dual employment.

The court of appeal employed a strict interpretation of La. R.S. 42:65 to limit the causes of action and available relief that may be pursued under the DODEL to instances where the defendant is actively engaged in the misconduct posing the threat to the public trust and confidence at the time judgment is rendered. Such a construction of the statute is entirely consistent with the language and the express purpose of the law, which is to eliminate the existence of those dual employments that compromise the public’s interest due to inherent conflicts and excessive accumulation of governmental influence.

The State and the dissenting members of the court of appeal are correct that a literal application of La. R.S. 42:65 results in the absence of an available penalty under the DODEL to hold a wrongdoer accountable for his illegal actions when the prohibited employment is terminated prior to a judgment ordering the termination of the dual employment. More pertinent to these proceedings, we are cognizant of the the lack of a remedy under the DODEL for the State to obtain reimbursement of the governmental funds illegally received by Ms. Holliday during the period of the prohibited dual employment.

However, based on our review, we do not find monetary recovery of unlawfully received salaries and benefits by an employee engaged in dual employment was a driving motive in the legislative enactment of the DODEL. The policy for enacting the DODEL articulated in La. R.S. 42:61 makes no reference, express or implied, that | ^an employee’s receipt of dual salaries and benefits constitutes an impairment to the public’s interest and confidence. Moreover, while La. R.S. 42:65 expressly rectifies the misconduct at issue through an issuance of an order to vacate pursuant to Subsection (B), the provision is not inherently penal in nature. In other words, there is no accountability for engaging in the illegal activity. While the Legislature does provide a remedy of reimbursement pursuant to Subsection (C), the penalty is imposed at the discretion of the court within limited circumstances (i.e., reimbursement conditioned on imposition of declaratory judgment). See State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 800 (“What a legislature says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will”).

Additionally, an extensive review of the legislative history does not reflect in any respect that the Legislature enacted the DODEL with a concern for the financial benefits afforded to employees through salaries paid to the detriment of the State’s fisc. Rather, the history indicates the law was enacted for the inherent reasons professed in La. R.S. 42:61, specifically, to eliminate those dual governmental roles that give rise to the appearance of impropriety, in an effort to promote a positive perception of governmental employment.

|i2As stated, the Court agrees the court of appeal’s strict application of La. R.S. |1342:65 furthers the Legislature’s mission in promoting public confidence through the elimination of certain dual employment and officeholding. Notwithstanding, we concede it is objectionable the State lacks an available remedy under the facts. Seemingly, the recovery of governmental monies received by a salaried employee engaged in dual employment would have been of interest to the Legislature in enacting the DODEL. Nonetheless, we are constrained by the limitations of our judicial role. “While it is this Court’s province ‘to consider the reason and spirit of a law,’ we are ‘not free to rewrite the law to effect a purpose that is not otherwise expressed.’ ” Naquin v. Titan Indem. Co. 00-1585, p. 9 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 704, 710, citing Backhus v. Transit Cas. Co., 549 So.2d 283, 291 (La.1989). Particularly, “[w]e also recognize that it is not the function of the judicial branch in a civilian legal system to legislate by inserting penalty provisions into statutes where the legislature has chosen not to do so.” Carter v. Duhe, 05-390, p. 10 (La.1/19/06), 921 So.2d 963, 970. The fact that the Legislature could have drafted La. R.S. 42:65 differently, and failed to do so, does not permit the Court to abandon long-established tools of statutory construction. The Legislature is certainly aware of these rules and the limitations of our judicial function. Johnson, 03-2993 at 15, 884 So.2d at 577. The dissenting view is that this result is unfortunate. However, it is for the legislative branch to remedy the deficiencies in the statutory scheme, if it should so desire.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we conclude Ms. Holliday has satisfied her obligation under La. C.C.P. arts. 681 and 927 of proving the State is not afforded a remedy in law based on the facts alleged in the petition. There was no legal basis under the DO-DEL for the State to assert a cause of action since the prohibited dual employment at issue was terminated prior to the commencement of the suit seeking judicial relief. As such, the | ucourt of appeal did not err in reversing the trial court’s denial of Ms. Holliday’s exception of no cause of action and dismissing the State’s action.

DECREE

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed, and the case is dismissed with prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

VICTORY, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by WEIMER, J.

KNOLL and WEIMER, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.

KNOLL, J.,

dissenting.

|,I respectfully dissent, finding the majority opinion’s interpretation of La.Rev. Stat. 42:65 leads to absurd consequences, ie., permitting a public employee who simultaneously held two full-time government employment positions in violation of Louisiana’s Dual Officeholding and Dual Employment Law, La.Rev.Stat. 42:61, et seq., (“DODEL”), to escape the reimbursement owed to the State for all pay or other compensation and allowances collected in violation of the statutes. In my view, the majority errs in its determination that its interpretation of La.Rev.Stat. 42:65 C is consistent with the express purpose of the law and the legislative intent in enacting the DODEL.

Clearly, as evidenced by the instant case, a strict application of La.Rev.Stat. 42:65 leads to an absurd result by exclusively conditioning monetary recovery pursuant to Subsection (C) contingent upon the judicial declaration of dual employment under Subsection (B). Where, as here, the employee resigns her state position prior to the filing of the State’s petition, the State is left without a remedy to recover the compensation collected in violation of DODEL.

The plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the rare cases wherein the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of the drafters. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1031, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989); Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 05-979, p. 14 (La.4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1202, 1211; State v. Benoit, 01-2712, p. 3 (La.5/14/02), 817 So.2d 11, 13. The object of the court in construing a statute is to ascertain the legislative intent and, where a literal interpretation would produce absurd consequences, the letter must give way to the spirit of the law and the statute construed so as to produce a reasonable result. Richard v. Hall, 03-1488, p. 25 (La.4/23/04), 874 So.2d 131, 149; SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 2000-1695, p. 12 (La.6/29/01), 808 So.2d 294, 302. The majority finds that the legislative intent, as expressed in La. Rev.Stat. 42:61 and gleaned from legislative history, does not evince reimbursement of government funds illegally received by an employee engaged in dual employment as a purpose of this legislation. To the contrary, the result reached by the majority in this case deviates from the legislative intent in enacting DODEL, despite the lack of language expressly declaring the receipt of dual salaries and benefits constitutes an impairment to the public’s interest and confidence. In my view, the majority errs because the legislative intent of implementing a policy to maintain a high level of trust and confidence by the general citizenry in public employees, by defining and regulating dual employment, clearly extends to and implicates prudent administration of the public fisc and recovery of public monies when collected in violation of DODEL. Permitting a public employee, who illegally received government funds during the period of prohibited dual employment, to retain those funds erodes the high level of confidence and trust by the general citizenry in public employees essential to the maintenance of a democratic society. See La. Rev.Stat. 42:61. The effect of the majority opinion is to diminish the legislative intent of elevated standards of good government by allowing a public employee to benefit from illegal dual public employment.

lsAs the majority correctly notes, the history indicates DODEL was enacted “in an effort to promote a positive perception of governmental employment.” The result reached in the majority opinion contradicts this legislative intent.

WEIMER, Justice,

dissenting.

hi respectfully dissent.

In my view, a narrow interpretation of the provisions of LSA-R.S. 42:65 loses sight of the primary purpose of statutory construction: to discern and enforce the intent of the legislature. Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 05-979, p. 10 (La.4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1202, 1209 (“The fundamental question in all cases of statutory interpretation is legislative intent and the ascertainment of the reason or reasons that prompted the Legislature to enact the law.”).

According to well-settled rules of statutory construction, 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, Inc. v. Bond, 2000-1695, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), 808 So.2d 294, 302; Succession of Boyter, 99-0761, p. 9 (La.1/7/00), 756 So.2d 1122, 1129. 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.

12While I agree that the starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself, Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2d 885, 888 (La.1993), that language must not be construed so narrowly as to defeat or undermine the clear intent of the legislature. State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 15 (La.11/27/07), 969 So.2d 1233, 1242. Thus, where a literal interpretation would produce absurd consequences, the letter must give way to the spirit of the law and the statute construed so as to produce a reasonable result. SWAT 2⅛ Shreveport Bossier, Inc., 2000-1695 at 12, 808 So.2d at 302.

Here, the purpose of the Dual Office-holding and Dual Employment Law (“DO-DEL”) is clearly set forth by the legislature:

It is the purpose of this Part to implement a policy which will serve to maintain a high level of trust and confidence by the general citizenry in public officials, employees, and governmental decisions of the government of this state and of its political subdivisions by defining and regulating dual employment and by defining, regulating, and prohibiting dual officeholding.

LSA-R.S. 42:61(B). By its terms, the purpose of the law is remedial. It is designed to correct “the widespread perception that public employment — whether in federal, state, or local government offices — is merely a sinecure” and to affirm the principle “that it is intolerable to give persons two slices of the public pie.” Arceneaux v. Treen, 671 F.2d 128, 133 (5th Cir.1982). Given its remedial purpose, the law should be construed consistently with that purpose so as to remedy the wrong that the legislature sought to ameliorate — the erosion of public trust and confidence in government produced by an illegal and unwarranted draw on the public fisc.

To construe the provisions of LSA-R.S. 42:65 in a strained manner produces, as Judge McDonald points out in his dissent in the court of appeal, the untenable result that an employee or officeholder in violation of the law could easily manipulate lathe system, and reap the benefits of his or her illegal action, by simply resigning prior to a court ruling. Such manipulation, and the erosion of public confidence in government that arises as a result thereof, is precisely the type of conduct that DODEL was enacted to remedy.

I cannot ascribe to an interpretation of the statute that would subvert its stated goal. Louisiana Revised Statute 42:65, as drafted, contains three subsections. Subsection A confers upon the attorney general, a district attorney, or any citizen of the state a right to proceed against a person alleged to be in violation of the prohibition against dual employment or officeholding. When a violation is found, Subsection B confers upon the court the authority to declare vacant the office or one of the employments and to enjoin the individual found to be in violation from further carrying out the duties of the office or employment. Subsection C allows the court to order reimbursement of all pay or other compensation received by the employee or official found to be in violation of the law to the appropriate governmental body— that body under whose auspices the office or employment is vacated.

The reimbursement provision of Subsection C is clearly intended to serve as a disincentive for dual employment or office-holding. The majority’s interpretation, which eviscerates this disincentive, is inconsistent with the express purpose of DO-DEL, which is to bolster public confidence and trust in government employees and officials.

       Judge Benjamin Jones, of the Fourth Judicial District Court, assigned as Justice Pro Tem-pore, participating in the decision.

      . La. R.S. 42:63(A), entitled “Prohibitions,” enumerates those activities barred under the DODEL. In pertinent part, the provision states:
      A. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection, no person holding an elective office, appointive office, or employment in any of the branches of state government or of a political subdivision thereof shall at the same time hold another elective office, appointive office, or employment in the government of a foreign country, in the government of the United States, or in the government of another state.
      (2) A person holding employment in the government of the United States and at the same time holding an appointive office in a political subdivision of the state shall not be in violation of this Subsection, unless the particular nature of his employment in combination with the duties and interests of his appointive office in a political subdivision of this state is otherwise prohibited by this Part or is found to be adverse to the public interest as set forth in R.S. 42:61.
      ‡ ⅜ ⅝ ⅝ ⅝
      E. No person holding a full-time appointive office or full-time employment in the government of this state or of a political subdivision thereof shall at the same time hold another full-time appointive office or full-time employment in the government of the state of Louisiana, in the government of a political subdivision thereof, or in a combination of these....

      . While Ms. Holliday did not contest she engaged in dual employment, she asserted her actions were not encompassed in the prohibited activities set forth in La. R.S. 42:63(A). She alleged she held an appointive office with the State of Louisiana and the particular nature of the employment, in combination with the federal employment, was not adverse to the public interest.

      . The trial court recognized that it was not necessary to declare the office vacant under La. R.S. 42:65(B) because Ms. Holliday had already resigned from her state job.

      . La. R.S. 42:61, entitled "Declaration of Policy, provides:
      A. It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public officials and employees perform the public business in a manner which serves to promote and maintain in the general citizenry a high level of confidence and trust in public officials, public employees, and governmental decisions. The attainment of this end is impaired when a public official or employee holds two or more public offices or public jobs which by their particular nature conflict with the duties and interests of each other. The attainment of a high level of confidence and trust by the general citizenry in public officials, employees, and governmental decisions is further impaired by the excessive accumulation of governmental power which may result from public officials or employees holding two or more public offices or public jobs.
      B. It is the purpose of this Part to implement a policy which will serve to maintain a high level of trust and confidence by the general citizenry in public officials, employees, and governmental decisions of the government of this state and of its political subdivisions by defining and regulating dual

        employment and by defining, regulating, and prohibiting dual officeholding.
      (Emphasis added.)

      . Since 1812, the Louisiana Constitution has directed the Legislature to enact laws relative to the dual officeholding by virtue of its powers endowed through La. Const. Art. 2, § 2. Currently, La. Const. Art. 10, § 22, entitled "Dual Employment and Dual Officeholding,” provides "[t]he legislature shall enact laws defining and regulating dual employment and defining, regulating, and prohibiting dual of-ficeholding in state and local government.”
      Prior to the turn of the 20th century through the 1950's, the laws enacted to address simultaneous employments and office-holdings were criminal statutes subject to penalties of imprisonment and monetary fines. However, in the 1940's, the lack of enforcement of the criminal provisions, among others, led to mass legislative reform of the state and local governments. Historical writings from this period provide the greatest insight into the policy behind the prohibition of dual employment. See Exxon Pipeline Co. v. La. Public Service Comm., 98-1737, 98-1738, p. 8 (La.3/2/99), 728 So.2d 855, 860 (“It is undisputed legislative history of an act and contemporaneous circumstances may be helpful guides in ascertaining legislative intent.”).
      Most notably, in a Special Report from Louisiana State Law Institute to Legislature of Louisiana (May 1940), the Law Institute recommended the enactment of a more effective criminal statute prohibiting dual employment and officeholding. Specifically, the Law Institute expressed legislation was necessary to eliminate any potential impropriety stemming from governmental servants having the ability to participate in the legislation or authorization of those issues in which they had a vested interest. The Law Institute’s Special Report provides, in relevant part:
      In the midst of the public scandals that have wracked our State during the past eight months this committee was appointed to make recommendations leading to certain reforms in the substantive and procedural criminal law of the State. The investigations of official misconduct in the State has served to point out a very great weakness in that portion of criminal statutes which have for their object prevention and punishment of misconduct and dishonesty on the part of public officials and employees .... [T]he structure of our criminal law insofar as it relates to the misconduct of public servants is antiquated and has not had the attention of our lawmakers for two or three decades. During this period the mass of public servants in our State, as in the Federal Government, has vastly grown, bringing with it increased need for just such statutes as are lacking.
      The reason is apparent, of course, as to why the punishment of offenses against the person and property of individuals has filled every session of our legislature while offenses against the public fisc and public properly have no legislative attention. The reason is that in the former classes of cases there were individuals who are directly and personally interested in the enactment of such statutes, whereas there has been great indifference to the commission of similar offenses by public officials against the State or its subdivisions or institutions.
      ⅝ * * * ⅜
      There has been a great hue and cry and just public indignation on the subject of dual office holding, and while the legislature has enacted statutes on this subject after the adoption of three past constitution, our present statute on the subject is woefully deficient and it is easy to understand why the public is confused and misled, and unable to understand why the constitution denounces dual office holding and yet it is so difficult to convict a person of this offense. The public is naturally indignant at revelations of public officials and members of public boards having financial interests in public contracts ...
      * * * * *
      It seems to this committee that the coming session of the Legislature is a good time for the adoption for such reform criminal legislation. The public interest is aroused and the legislators will be interested in adopting measures that will tend to prevent a recurrence of the unhappy situation in which our State has been plunged....

        Id. at 5-7.
      Although the reasons for proposing the legislation primarily reference concerns stemming from dual officeholding, the Louisiana Legislature in the 1940 Regular Session adopted verbatim, through the enactment of 1940 La. Acts, No. 259, the Law Institute’s proposed criminal statute barring certain dual employment, as well as dual officehold-ing. It was subsequently amended through 1942 La. Acts, No. 37, § 1 and 1956 La. Acts, No. 290, § 1 to eventually provide for La. R.S. 42:31, et seq., the first civil provisions that generally barred dual employment and officeholding. However, the statutes did not did not provide for any penalty or governmental remedy for a violation. In 1979, the Louisiana Legislature, through 1979 La. Acts, No. 700, § 1 and § 8, repealed the criminal provision relative to dual office holding and dual employment, as well as redesignated and amended the civil provisions, to provide for a more comprehensive body of law in the area. Specifically, it enacted the DODEL as it reads today pursuant to La. R.S. 42:61, et seq.

      . In this respect, the reference in Subsection C of the statute to "the position vacated as provided in Subsection B hereof,” merely serves to identify which of the two employments or offices to which reimbursement is properly directed. In other words, Subsection B dictates that the judge declare one of the two positions vacant and reimbursement under Subsection C is owed to the vacated office or employment.