Louisiana House Bill HB1147

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/1/14
• Refer: 4/2/14

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 passage of HB 1147 has direct implications for state financial management, specifically in how the state handles appropriations for legal judgments. By allocating these funds, the bill addresses the duty of the state to settle financial liabilities that arise from court rulings, particularly those associated with medical expenses. This kind of appropriation highlights the necessity of managing state resources effectively, especially in scenarios where legal actions impact state finances.

Summary

House Bill 1147 appropriates a total of $497,935.56 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2014-2015. This amount is designated for the payment of interest on future medical expenses related to a legal judgment stemming from the cases of 'John M. Byrd, Eugene Moore, Chris Navarro and Joseph Michael Williams v. State of Louisiana DOTD' and 'Jerry Starr, individually and on behalf of his minor daughter Jamie Starr v. State of Louisiana DOTD'. The appropriation signifies the state's commitment to fulfilling its financial obligations arising from these lawsuits.

Sentiment

Generally, the sentiment surrounding HB 1147 appears to be pragmatic and focused on compliance with legal obligations. Given that it deals with a specific financial appropriation for already settled judgments, the reaction is likely to be neutral or supportive among lawmakers who prioritize fiscal responsibility and accountability. The sentiment may vary slightly among those concerned about the larger implications of state expenditures on legal costs.

Contention

While the bill itself is straightforward, the underlying cases it addresses may evoke differing opinions regarding state liability and the management of public funds. Some stakeholders may argue that such appropriations divert funds from other essential services, while others could emphasize the importance of honoring judicial decisions as a matter of principle. Therefore, although the act of appropriating funds from the general fund is seen as necessary, debates may arise regarding the prioritization of such expenditures against the backdrop of the state's budgetary constraints.