Louisiana House Bill HB552

Louisiana 2021 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/21
• Refer: 4/2/21
• Refer: 4/12/21

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of the amended non-appealable judgment by consent against the state in the suit entitled Mitchell Johnson, Jr. v. State of Louisiana et al. c/w David Lanus et al. v. State of Louisiana et al.

Impact

The enactment of HB 552 signifies the financial obligations of the state in dealing with judicial outcomes. By mandating the payment of judgments, the bill not only ensures that the affected individuals receive due compensation, but it also underscores the accountability of state agencies for their actions. This is particularly meaningful as it highlights the potential impact of judicial decisions on state finances and legislative responsibility in appropriating funds to satisfy legal judgments.

Summary

House Bill 552 directs the appropriation of funds from the State General Fund to cover payment for an amended non-appealable judgment against the state of Louisiana, specifically related to a case entitled 'Mitchell Johnson, Jr. versus State of Louisiana'. This legislation authorizes the disbursement of significant sums to address damages awarded to Mitchell Johnson, Jr. and David and Shayla Lanus, resulting from claims against the state's Department of Transportation and Development. In total, the bill stipulates payments totalling approximately $1.6 million for past damages, medical expenses, and future medical care provisions.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 552 appears to be pragmatic, reflecting a recognition of the necessity to honor legal judgments and support those affected by the state's actions. While the bill itself may not be contentious among legislators, as it primarily deals with the execution of a court's decision, it does involve considerable sums of taxpayer money, which may provoke discussions regarding fiscal responsibility and state expenditure. Lawmakers are likely focused on ensuring that the state's legal obligations are met while also considering future implications for budgeting.

Contention

While there is no indication of significant controversy surrounding HB 552 itself, the underlying judgments it addresses may have been more contentious during earlier proceedings. The contentions likely arose in the courtroom concerning the responsibility of the state and the specific circumstances leading to the judgments. This bill serves to finalize financial accountability as dictated by court rulings, thereby bypassing further debate within the legislature about the merits of the claims, which were already settled in court.