Louisiana House Bill HB399

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/15
• Refer: 4/2/15
• Refer: 4/13/15

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of interest on future medical expenses in the judgment entitled "John M. Byrd, Eugene Moore, Chris Navarro and Joseph Michael Williams v. State of Louisiana DOTD" c/w "Jerry Starr, individually and on behalf of his minor daughter Jamie Starr v. State of Louisiana DOTD"

Impact

The introduction of HB 399 signifies a commitment by the state to fulfill financial judgments that arise from legal actions against governmental entities. By providing the necessary funding to cover medical expenses, the bill indicates that the state is acknowledging its responsibility in these matters. This action may also set a precedent for future appropriations related to similar judgments, thereby impacting how the state manages financial liabilities in legal contexts. The appropriation would relieve the state from ongoing legal interest payments after the effective date of the bill, thus potentially saving funds in the long term if promptly enacted.

Summary

House Bill 399, introduced by Representative Pylant, seeks to appropriate funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2015-2016. The purpose of this appropriation is to cover a judgment payment related to future medical expenses in a legal case against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The total amount specified for appropriation is $497,935.56, along with legal interest accruing from July 1, 2012, until the full payment is made. The bill is specifically concentrated on compensating plaintiffs in a consolidated suit that relates to individuals affected by DOTD's actions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 399 appears to be pragmatic and focused on fulfilling legal obligations. There is an implicit agreement among legislators on the necessity of appropriating these funds to settle the judgment, which could foster a cooperative attitude toward addressing legal matters involving state agencies. However, as the bill only addresses a specific judgment, discussions around it may not provoke extensive debate or contention amongst lawmakers, indicating a consensus on the importance of upholding court decisions and the associated financial responsibilities.

Contention

While HB 399 is primarily a straightforward appropriation bill with limited potential for contention, it may raise questions regarding the funding sources and the larger context of state budget allocations. Potentially, discussions could arise over how similar future judgments are addressed, especially in a budget-constrained environment. Legislative members might seek clarity on whether this allocation would impact funding for other essential services, particularly in areas faced with significant budgetary demands.