DEWITT WILLIAMS
v.
A-JAX LUMBER COMPANY
No. WCA 07-1
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit
May 2, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 06-02405 JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS' COMPENSATION JUDGE
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy Howard Ezell, and J. David Painter, Judges.
Maurice Blake Monrose, Hurlburt, Privat & Monrose Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: A-Jax Lumber Company
George Arthur Flournoy, Flournoy, Doggett & Losavio Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Dewitt Williams
BILLY HOWARD EZELL JUDGE
In this workers' compensation case, Dewitt Williams appeals a judgment which found that his request for payment of a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. For the following reasons, we reverse.
FACTS
The facts of this case are sufficiently detailed in our previous opinion. Williams v. A-Jax Lumber Co., 05-935 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/10/06), 930 So.2d 300, writs denied, 06-1486, 06-1498 (La. 9/29/06), 937 So.2d 865, 866. Therefore, we will not repeat them here.
Before an opinion was rendered by this court, Mr. Williams filed another disputed claim form on April 18, 2006. The purpose of this claim was to procure the reimbursement of the cost of an FCE which had been requested by two doctors. A-Jax Lumber Company, and Southeastern Claims Services excepted to the claim on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, prematurity, lack of procedural capacity to be sued, and res judicata.
A hearing was held on the matter on October 2, 2006. The trial court granted the exception of res judicata, dismissing Mr. Williams' claim. He appeals that decision.
RES JUDICATA
Defendants argue that the claim for the cost of the FCE is res judicata because Mr. Williams unsuccessfully tried to admit the FCE into evidence at the first trial. It claims that a cause of action for the cost of the FCE existed at the time of trial and when the judgment became final.
Mr. Williams argues that it was the admissibility of the FCE that was previously litigated. The issue of reimbursement of the FCE was not a concern at the first trial.
In Metoyer v. Roy O. Martin, Inc. 03-1540, p.2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/1/04), 895 So.2d 552, 564, on rehearing, writ denied, 05-1027 (La. 6/3/05), 903 So.2d 467 (quoting Prudhomme v. Iberville Insulations, 93-778...
