Louisiana House Bill HB54

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/15
• Refer: 2/27/15
• Refer: 4/13/15

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Henrey Clark and Denise Ramsey v. State of Louisiana DOTD"

Impact

The passage of HB54 signifies a direct impact on the state budget, reflecting the obligation of the state to finance court-ordered judgments. By appropriating funds in these cases, the bill underscores the financial accountability of the government in legal matters. Such appropriations are critical not only for meeting the state's legal obligations but also for maintaining public trust in government accountability. The necessity for this allocation might raise questions about the government’s funding mechanisms and priorities, especially concerning court settlements and compensation to citizens.

Summary

House Bill 54 is an appropriations bill that focuses on allocating state funds to cover a consent judgment resulting from a legal case involving Henrey Clark and Denise Ramsey against the State of Louisiana. The bill designates a total of $326,000, with $276,000 going to Clark and Ramsey and $50,000 to Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, in relation to their lawsuit against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) and the Lafayette City Parish Consolidated Government. This funding will impact the state's budget for the fiscal year 2015-2016, emphasizing the need for appropriations to fulfill legal judgments.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB54 appears relatively straightforward since it deals primarily with financial appropriations to satisfy legal judgments rather than introducing policy changes. Legislative discussions likely revolved around the appropriateness of the funding and ensuring that it aligns with other budgetary needs. Generally, there tends to be support for fiscal responsibility in honoring legal obligations, although occasional debates may arise regarding the adequacy of funds available for other public services.

Contention

While there may not be significant point of contention directly relating to the language of HB54, its implications for state budget allocations could spark debate. Concerns may arise regarding whether such expenditures divert funds from other essential programs or services. Additionally, the appropriations highlight the broader context of how much the state spends on legal settlements and whether this reflects a systematic issue within state agencies, such as the DOTD, necessitating reforms to prevent future lawsuits.