Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

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. 壯 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