Louisiana House Bill HB1039

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/5/16
• Refer: 4/6/16

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Gerald L. Blow, Traci L. Newsom, individually and on behalf of her minor child Emily Johnson v. State of Louisiana, through the DOTD and Richard W. Suhm"

Impact

The passage of HB 1039 has significant implications for the state's financial management and priorities. By appropriating funds to satisfy a legal judgment, it reflects the state's commitment to uphold judicial decisions and fulfill its obligations to citizens. This legislation specifically impacts the budgetary allocations within the General Fund for the fiscal year 2016-2017, which may influence how funds are distributed among other state services and initiatives. It demonstrates a recognition of the financial liabilities that arise from litigation involving state agencies, particularly in the context of health services.

Summary

House Bill 1039 is an appropriations bill focused on settling a consent judgment related to the case of Gerald L. Blow and Traci L. Newsom against the State of Louisiana. The legislation outlines the allocation of a total of $119,876.53 intended for payment to Traci L. Newsom and $19,200 to Gerald Blow, thereby fulfilling the financial obligations determined by the court. Additionally, it includes a provision for Medicaid reimbursement to the Department of Health and Hospitals, amounting to $10,523.47, along with a separate allocation of $400 to AmeriHealth Caritas Louisiana.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1039 appears to be largely neutral. Given its nature as an appropriations bill aimed at fulfilling a court-ordered payment, there are limited points of contention expressed in public discussions surrounding the bill. Stakeholder opinions may vary; however, the primary focus is on financial legality and responsibility rather than contentious political debate. Stakeholders have generally accepted the necessity of the bill given its compliance with judicial mandates.

Contention

While HB 1039 does not seem to provoke significant contention, it nonetheless raises questions about the allocation of state resources, especially regarding Medicaid services and other public health commitments. The decision to appropriate funds for particular judgments may lead to scrutiny over prioritization in health funding, potentially impacting the availability of services. Although no active opposition is noted, the practice of settling state liabilities through appropriations remains a subject of broader scrutiny in the ongoing discussion about fiscal responsibility and resource allocation in state governance.