# Labiche v. Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund Oversight Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · November 3, 1995 · 69 F.3d 21

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7909

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael LABICHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISIANA PATIENTS’ COMPENSATION FUND OVERSIGHT BOARD; Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 3, 1995
- **Citations:** 69 F.3d 21; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 31132; 1995 WL 646342
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Davis, Barksdale, Demoss
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7909

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that we may affirm a judgment for different reasons than those relied upon by a district court

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30782
Summary Calendar

MICHAEL LABICHE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

LOUISIANA PATIENTS' COMPENSATION FUND
OVERSIGHT BOARD; LOUISIANA PATIENTS'
COMPENSATION FUND,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
November 3, 1995

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On May 12, 1995, Labiche filed suit in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the

Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund Oversight Board (the "Board")

seeking to review the decisions of the Board and its claims

committee which denied recovery by Labiche on his claim for

custodial services furnished to his invalid wife. Jurisdiction of

such suit in the federal district court was alleged to be based

upon Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1299.43E(1) which states:
The district court from which final judgment issues shall
have continuing jurisdiction in cases where medical care
and related benefits are determined to be needed by the
patient.

Labiche further alleged that on July 22, 1993, a "Judgment

Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case" had been entered in Civil

Action No. 93-1950 of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana and a copy of such 1993 judgment was

appended to the original petition in this suit. This 1993 suit was

a medical malpractice suit filed by Labiche against a physician,

who treated Labiche's wife, and against the Board and the Louisiana

Medical Mutual Insurance Company. The district court entered an

order noting possible lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

called for a memorandum of legal authorities from the parties

addressing that question. After receiving the parties memorandum,

the district court entered its Memorandum and Order under date of

June 21, 1995, in which the district court reviewed and analyzed

the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, the Louisiana Administrative

Procedures Act and various decisions of the Louisiana Supreme Court

and concluded that Labiche should have filed his petition for

review of the orders of the Board in the state district court in

Baton Rouge and accordingly dismissed this federal suit without

prejudice. Labiche timely appeals to this Court.

We AFFIRM for slightly different reasons. Jurisdiction of the

United States District Court is fixed by statute 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330

- 1368. We have reviewed all of those statutory provisions and

none would authorize appellate review by a United States District

Court of any actions taken by a state agency. The jurisdiction of

2
a United States District Court cannot be created, increased or

diminished by (i) agreement or stipulation of the parties, (ii) an

act of any state legislature nor (iii) by any decision of a State

Supreme Court. The 1993 judgment entered by the United States

District Court in Civil Action No. 93-1950 did not purport in any

way to retain jurisdiction in that court for purposes of reviewing

any controversies which might arise under the settlement approved

therein and Civil Action No. 93-1950 was "dismissed with prejudice"

by such judgment. There is no basis whatsoever for any claim of

continuing jurisdiction pursuant to the 1993 judgment.

We AFFIRM the determination of the district court that there

was no subject matter jurisdiction in the United States District

Court; and accordingly this appeal is DISMISSED.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7909. Public record. Not legal advice.