holding the liberative prescription of three years for action to recover compensation for services rendered applied to physician’s claims that her supplemental salary she earned was part of her average eamable compensation upon which her retirement benefits were calculated; three-year prescriptive period commenced to run the first month the university paid the physician supplemental salary and failed to remit its share of employer contributions to the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana based on her supplemental salary
How later courts described this case
- holding the liberative prescription of three years for action to recover compensation for services rendered applied to physician’s claims that her supplemental salary she earned was part of her average eamable compensation upon which her retirement benefits were calculated; three-year prescriptive period commenced to run the first month the university paid the physician supplemental salary and failed to remit its share of employer contributions to the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana based on her supplemental salary
- “Once [the employer] first paid plaintiff a supplemental component in her salary and failed to contribute its portion based upon this component she alleges was part of her earnable compensation, plaintiffs claim could be acted upon.”
- interpreting La. R.S. 11:701(10)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Dill v. 32nd Judicial District Court Judicial Clerk's Fund, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 2127 (2009)
On appeal, Dill contends that the Fishbein opinion is factually inapplicable to this dispute.
The opinion
| TVICTORY, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s holding in this case, but write separately because I disagree with the majority’s complete and total repudiation, although in dicta, of the doctrine of laches. While recognizing that this equitable doctrine does not prevail in Louisiana, this Court has applied, and should continue to apply, this doctrine if “rare and extraordinary circumstances” so merit. See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) (“a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy ... ”); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) (“federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty”); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) (“The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the delay”); Barnett v. Develle, 289 So.2d 129 (La.1974); New Orleans Firefighters Ass’n Local 632 v. City of New Orleans, 263 La. 649 , 269 So.2d 194 (1972) (laches is an affirmative defense which must be specially pleaded); Ziemer v. City of New Orleans, 195 La. 1054 , 197 So. 754 (La.1940) (an unreasonable delay by aggrieved public employees in asserting monetary claims against a public body may relieve that 12body of liability under the doctrine of laches).