Louisiana House Bill HB199

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgments against the Department of Transportation and Development in the matter of "Keith Phillips v. Pattie K. Inzenga, et al" consolidated with "Robert H. Fuqua, et al v. City-Parish of Baton Rouge"

Impact

If enacted, HB 199 has direct implications on state finances as it involves significant appropriations from the general fund to cover legal settlements. This may affect how future budgets are allocated, as funds needed for other state projects might be diverted to satisfy these judgments. Moreover, it highlights the state's responsibility in legal cases, which can set a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future, potentially influencing the state's legal strategies moving forward.

Summary

House Bill 199 is concerned with the appropriation of funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2013-2014, specifically aimed at settling certain consent judgments against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The bill outlines the amounts to be paid to different plaintiffs involved in a consolidated legal case entitled 'Keith Phillips v. Pattie K. Inzenga, et al' along with 'Robert H. Fuqua, et al v. City-Parish of Baton Rouge'. The bill specifies several monetary settlements for individual plaintiffs, which total to significant amounts that the state is required to pay to resolve these legal matters.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 199 appears to be neutral as it primarily addresses financial obligations without substantial political controversy. Typically, appropriations bills garner less public attention than more contentious legislation, although the implications of such judgments might raise discussions on accountability and fiscal responsibility. The process of funding settlements can often lead to concerns about transparency and governance, especially when large sums are involved and the public may question whether such payments are justified.

Contention

The primary contention related to HB 199 centers on the appropriations for legal judgments against state agencies. While the bill seeks to clarify and finalize the fiscal matters pertaining to previous court decisions, some legislators or stakeholders might argue about the efficiency of the state’s legal defenses and whether such settlements could have been minimized or avoided altogether. There is often ongoing debate regarding the appropriateness of using tax dollars for legal liabilities and the accountability of state agencies that lead to such financial obligations.