# Lane v. Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · March 12, 2009 · 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 0150

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663379

## Case

- **Full name:** Ruby LANE v. PATIENT’S COMPENSATION FUND OVERSIGHT BOARD
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** March 12, 2009
- **Citations:** 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 0150; 4 So. 3d 802; 2009 La. App. LEXIS 387; 2008 WL 508645
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McDONALD
- **Judges:** Gaidry, McDonald, McClendon
- **Cited by:** 3 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/9663379

## Opinion text

McDONALD, J.,
concurring.
|¶1 respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter to add an additional defendant.
The plaintiff in this matter was obligated by statute to either pay $100 or file an in forma pauperis ruling within 45 days of the notice from the Oversight Board. While the plaintiff may have been indigent on December 23, 2005, it is not the date that the plaintiff was declared to be a pauper that is controlling, it is the date of filing of the fee or the pauper ruling. The deadline for doing either was February 23, 2006. The check for $100 was not received until March 10, 2006 and the in forma pauperis affidavit was not received until April 3. For these reasons I agree with the Oversight Board that the plaintiffs request is “invalid and without effect.”
Under these facts I see no reason to remand for the purpose of adding the defendant, BRGMC, to this appeal. While not a party to this appeal, they are still a named defendant in the claim with the PCF and are not adversely affected by a ruling finding the filing with the PCF to be invalid and without effect.
12However, under a different set of facts, the failure to include the health care provider could result in prejudice to them. Therefore, as a general rule, the health care provider is a necessary party to this litigation and should be included.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663379. Public record. Not legal advice.