Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), 694 So.2d 184, 187 (“[Wjhen the legislature specifically enumerates a series of things, the legislature’s omission of other items, which could have been easily included in the statute, is deemed intentional.”). Indeed, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “[b]y its very terms, this provision is limited to district court judgments which are modified or reversed.” Am. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Myles, 0-2457 (La.4/25/01), 783 So.2d 1282, 1285 (Emphasis original). In that case, the supreme court considered a judgment originating from the First City Court of the City of New Orleans and concluded that “by implication, this provision does not apply to city court judgments.” Id. | (¡(Emphasis original). See also Snowton, 6 So.3d at 168-70 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit
holding art v  8b does not apply to judgments rendered by the office of workers compensation holding rule does not apply to satisfied conciliationcourt judgments recognizing that a federal court may not review a challenge to a benefits determination of the office of workers compensation programs in the department of labor recognizing that res judicata applies to judgments approving workers compensation settlements holding that judgments rendered by courts not having authority to enter such are not subject to collateral attack because judges entering those judgments were de facto officers