Louisiana House Bill HB140

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/25/11

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Darin Zech, et al v. DOTD, et al"

Impact

The bill has a direct financial impact on state funds as it reallocates a significant amount from the general fund to cover a specific legal obligation. By ensuring that the state meets its financial liabilities resulting from court judgments, the bill may help maintain trust in the state's ability to manage its judicial responsibilities. It reinforces the notion that state entities, such as the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), can be held accountable for their actions in civil matters.

Summary

House Bill 140 focuses on the appropriation of funds mandated to pay a legal judgment arising from the case 'Darin Zech, et al v. DOTD, et al.' Specifically, the bill aims to allocate $236,365.94 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2011-2012. This amount is intended for payment of the judgment along with applicable legal interest and court costs. Payments for future medical expenses, totaling $140,214.00, will be sourced from the Future Medical Care Fund. The effective date of the bill is set for July 1, 2011.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 140 appears to be pragmatic, focusing on the necessity to address legal judgments that come from state agencies. There seems to be a general agreement across the legislative body on the importance of honoring court rulings, albeit discussions may revolve around budgetary constraints and how appropriations like these affect broader fiscal responsibilities. The concern for future funding and the impact of such payments on other state projects may also be a point of contention among legislators.

Contention

While the bill addresses the specific case and ensures payment, the concern lies in its implications for future state appropriations and how such payments reflect on the state's budget priorities. Some legislators might question the appropriateness of using state general funds for such judgments, particularly in the context of competing financial obligations. Thus, while the bill serves a legal responsibility, it opens broader discussions about fiscal policy and governance.