explaining that “[u]nder La.R.S. 13:4203, the date of judicial demand is the date the complaint is filed, not the date of judgment,” and further explaining the enactment of La. R.S. 13:4203 created a substantive right to such interest in tort plaintiffs (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[u]nder La.R.S. 13:4203, the date of judicial demand is the date the complaint is filed, not the date of judgment,” and further explaining the enactment of La. R.S. 13:4203 created a substantive right to such interest in tort plaintiffs (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
AMY, J.,
concurring in the result and assigning separate reasons.
| Louisiana Revised Statutes 46:446(A) provided the Department of Health and *1084 Hospitals with a cause of action for the damages at issue. A judgment reflecting the costs for those damages would have properly included interest under the statutory authority cited by the majority.
However, and also pursuant to La.R.S. 46:446(A), the DHH intervened in the plaintiffs’ case rather than filing suit in its own right. Further, the DHH’s outstanding cause of action for the damages at issue was subsequently extinguished by the satisfaction of the lien by the plaintiffs. Whether the negotiations between the DHH and the plaintiffs included consideration for the interest on the damages became a contractual matter between the DHH and the plaintiffs. With the satisfaction of the DHH lien, the right to pursue interest remained with the party who retained the cause of action against the Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund. In this case, the plaintiffs retained that cause of action. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, the plaintiffs would have been able to recover the interest on the damages at-issue, i.e., those previously paid by DHH and now repaid by the plaintiffs.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur in the result.