Louisiana House Bill HB270

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the Department of Transportation and Development in the matter of "Jeremy LeBlanc v. Katrina M. Libersat, et al"

Impact

The passing of HB270 is expected to have a direct impact on state budgeting procedures, particularly in how funds are allocated for legal settlements involving state departments. By appropriating these funds, the state demonstrates accountability in addressing legal judgments. This may also set a precedent for how similar cases are managed in the future, strengthening the obligation of the state to fulfill its financial commitments resulting from litigation. Furthermore, ensuring that Medicaid reimbursements are included suggests a broader recognition of the interconnectedness of health and legal obligations on the state's financial resources.

Summary

House Bill 270 is designed to appropriate funds from the state general fund to cover the payment of a judgment made against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. The specific case referenced is 'Jeremy LeBlanc v. Katrina M. Libersat, et al', which represents a legal battle that resulted in financial liability for the state. The bill stipulates an allocation of $25,000 to satisfy the consent judgment, alongside an additional $25,000 for Medicaid reimbursement, indicating a commitment to settle legal obligations and support those affected by the lawsuit. The effective date of the appropriation is set for July 1, 2013, ensuring timely funding essential for compliance with the court's ruling.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB270 appears to be largely procedural and administrative, given that it deals with the fulfillment of a court mandated obligation rather than introducing new regulatory frameworks or policies. There might have been minimal public contention as the bill addresses required payments rather than a matter of legislative debate. However, within specific circles such as the Department of Transportation and Development, there could be underlying concerns regarding the implications of funding shortfalls owing to legal settlements and liabilities in the future.

Contention

While the bill itself is straightforward in its intent, it does raise questions regarding the adequacy of oversight in state departments to prevent such judgments from occurring. Notably, critics might argue that repeated occurrences of paying judgments suggest systemic issues that need to be addressed within the Department of Transportation and Development. However, since HB270 functions primarily as a payment legislative tool rather than as a policy driver, discussions of extensive contention are likely minimal in comparison to more controversial legislative measures.