A lawsuit against the LSU System Board of Supervisors will be heard in East Baton Rouge Parish — and the Board is pleased about it.The suit, which alleges the Board unlawfully closed Charity Hospital in New Orleans without legislative approval, will be heard in East Baton Rouge Parish, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled last week. The decision comes after the Louisiana Supreme Court granted an appeal from the Board against the case being heard in New Orleans, as the plaintiffs had requested.The suit was filed after the University closed Charity Hospital in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs, who say they were patients at the hospital, are alleging the hospital was closed by the Board without proper clearance from the legislature, said Charles Zewe, System vice president for communications and external affairs.”[The plaintiffs] are claiming that only the legislature can approve closing a hospital, clinic or health care facility,” Zewe said. “LSU’s position is that LSU did not choose to close the hospital — Hurricane Katrina did.”Rather than closing the facility, the Board, using the division of administration and three groups of experts, made the decision not to reopen it because of hurricane-related damage, said Ray Lamonica, general counsel for the System.Zewe said that decision is within the Board’s authority.”The Board of Supervisors has authority to run the University system in its entirety, including the authority to not reopen a facility with significant damage,” Zewe said.But last week’s ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, Lamonica said.”[The ruling dealt with] purely a venue question — where is the proper place to sue the proper party,” Lamonica said.According to a Supreme Court news release, the defendants argued “venue is only proper in East Baton Rouge Parish, where the state agency that has the authority to make an administrative decision to close Charity is located.”Lamonica said the reason the Board pushed for a trial in East Baton Rouge is simply the case should be heard there legally.”There’s no benefit — we like to follow the law,” Lamonica said. “The benefit is the rule of law.”Another issue with the case was who the plaintiffs named as the defendant. The original suit listed Larry Hollier, chancellor of the Health Sciences Center, as the defendant. But Lamonica said the Board, not Hollier, was the entity to be sued.”He is not a proper party defendant,” Lamonica said. “He’s a representative.”The court upheld that claim, ruling “it is clear that the legislature placed in the [Board of Supervisors], and not the individual institutions under its control, the juridical power to sue and be sued.”Zewe said no date has been set for the case to be heard.—-Contact Ryan Buxton at [email protected]