gets.primecure.net

Category: Workplace Accidents

  • When one employee attacks a supervisor, can a supervisor proceed with a lawsuit against the employer?

    Nurses fighting one another may sound like a scene from daytime television, but unfortunately, this also occurs in real time.  When one employee attacks a supervisor, can a supervisor proceed with a lawsuit against the employer?  A nursing home in Laplace, Louisiana, recently tried to be dismissed from a personal injury lawsuit regarding two of its employees, stating it could not be vicariously liable.   The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal judged this was a question for trial.   

    Two employees of Twin Oaks Nursing Home, Inc. (“Twin Oaks”) in the parish of St. John the Baptist were involved in an altercation in April 2012. A supervisor, Ms. Haynie, approached her employee, Ms. Alford, requesting that Ms. Alford report to her office. When Ms. Haynie turned to walk away, Ms. Alford struck her supervisor repeatedly in the head and neck from behind. Ms. Haynie sustained bruises, scratches, a black eye, and soft tissue damage.  Ms. Alford had numerous prior work violations and justified the attack by stating she wanted Twin Oaks to give her a reason to fire her.  

    Ms. Haynie filed a lawsuit against Ms. Alford and Twin Oaks in the Fortieth Judicial District Court Parish of St. John the Baptist. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit against Twin Oaks, stating that the nursing home could not be vicariously liable because Ms. Alford’s actions were not employment-rooted or incidental to employee performance.  

    The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal disagreed.  An employer may be held liable for an employee’s tortious act if the tortious act was primarily employment-rooted and incidental to the performance of the employee’s duties while occurring on the employer’s premises and during the hours of employment.  See LaBrane v. Lewis, 292 So.2d.216 (La. 1974).  An employer is not liable merely because an act happened on the employer’s premises during working hours. 

    Vicarious liability will be found only when the employee is acting within the scope and in furtherance of their employment duties.  See Baumeister v. Plunkett, 673 So.2d 994 (La. 1996).  However, the Fifth Circuit did note that not every factor above must be met, and each case’s particular set of facts should be carefully analyzed for employer liability.   

    The Fifth Circuit determined that Ms. Haynie presented enough material facts regarding employer liability that should be presented at a trial.  Thus, it was inappropriate for the District Court to dismiss Twin Oaks.  On the date of the altercation, Ms. Haynie was at the nursing home performing her duties.  Ms. Alford stated the attack was partly provoked by her assumption that she would soon be fired, which suggests it was employment-rooted.  Other facts indicated that the conflict between the two women was purely personal.   Either way, enough facts required a trial to determine whether liability for the injuries could be passed to Twin Oaks.   

    Vicarious liability can be tricky territory to tread without an excellent and skilled lawyer, no matter which side of the aisle you find yourself on. It is vital that anyone caught up in a dispute involving employer liability seek appropriate legal advice. 

    Additional Sources: Demetris Haynie and Curtis Young Sr. Versus Twin Oaks Nursing Home, Inc. and Annie Alford 

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Employer Vicarious Liability: Court of Appeals Examines the Scope of Employment Requirement for Vicarious Liability

  • Permanently Disabled Individual Not Acting Under Scope of Employment In Workers’ Compensation Case

    Unfortunately, accidents at the workplace are not uncommon occurrences. What happens, however, when you are injured while traveling? Will you still receive workers’ compensation if you are not physically on the jobsite? The answers to these questions will depend on the facts of the case and whether you were acting within the scope of your employment. The following Caddo Parish case outlines this predicament.  

    It is undisputed that Mitchell Stringer was hired at Hand Construction, LLC, sometime after September 30, 2014, and that he was asked to attend a meeting at the company office by John Provost, Vice President for the company, in early October. However, the parties disagree on whether Stringer was terminated at the meeting, as testified by Provost and Adam Hubble, CEO for the company, or was told there would not be any more work for him, but that he would receive two weeks’ severance pay, as testified by Stringer. Stringer’s final paycheck included the date “October 9, 2015.” He was issued a check with “severance” in the ledger for the week ending in October 16, 2015. 

    It was also disputed as to whether or not the parties agreed that Stringer would fly to North Dakota to retrieve his vehicle and the company’s GPS equipment. Regardless, on October 8, 2015, Stringer flew to North Dakota to obtain his vehicle and company equipment. Two days later, while traveling from North Dakota to Louisiana, Stringer was involved and injured in a motor vehicle accident in Arkansas.

    As a result of his injuries, Stringer was hospitalized and underwent a minimum of ten surgeries. He also sustained permanently disabling injuries, although he was able to return to modified employment with an employer in Alabama in 2017. 

    Stringer ultimately brought a Disputed Claim for Compensation, where he requested, in part, wage benefits, payment of medical expenses, and authorization for additional medical treatment against Hand Construction, LLC. The Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 1-W for the Parish of Caddo, found that Stringer was told at the October meeting that he was no longer performing services for the company and subsequently entered judgment in favor of the company. Stringer then filed this appeal with the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal. 

    In order to bring a compensation action, the claimant must be able to establish an injury by an act arising out of, or in the course of, employment. La. R.S. 23:1031(A). Additionally, when reviewing, a court does not determine whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge was right, but only if the findings were reasonable. See  Buxton v. Iowa Police Dept..   

    The Court of Appeal found the main issue in this case to be whether Stringer was employed by Hand Construction, LLC at the time of the automobile accident in Arkansas on October 10th. After hearing the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that Stringer’s trip to North Dakota was primarily a personal mission, he was not paid for the trip, and his plan to send back the company equipment did not extend or renew the employment relationship. As such, the Court of Appeal found no manifest error in the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s findings that Stringer’s employment had been terminated at the early October meeting and, therefore, his accident and subsequent injuries did not arise out of, or were in the course of, employment with Hand Construction, LLC.    

    As seen by the outcome of this case, it is important to fully understand the status of your employment at all times. If you have any questions as to whether you were injured within the course of employment, however, contact a personal injury attorney with ample experience in these matters. 

    Additional Sources: MITCHELL STRINGER versus HAND CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm Blog Writer: Samantha Calhoun

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Workers’ Compensation: Worker Entitled To Workers’ Compensation From Injuries From Passing Out At Work — Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

    Are Mental Injuries Covered By Workers’ Compensation?

  • Are Mental Injuries Covered By Workers’ Compensation?

    Employees are often exposed to stressful situations while at work, whether from unhelpful coworkers or understaffing. Under what circumstances are resulting mental injuries entitled to workers’ compensation? 

    Diedre Emerson worked for Willis Knighton Medical Center as a certified nurse assistant on the cancer floor. One day, she arrived at work for her regular night shift. She found the prior shift had not completed a lot of their work, so she would have to do additional work. When she learned this, she became upset and mad. She said this was more of the same old behavior.

    While working that day, she indicated that she felt something pop in her head but admitted nothing physically happened to cause the pop. After completing her shift, she went to the emergency room. The medical records from the visit did not show she complained about weakness on one side of her body or other neurological symptoms. Her primary complaint was hyperventilation and nervousness. Emerson was subsequently late in calling Willis Knighton to tell them she would not be able to work her shift. She was fired. 

    About two months later, she went back to the emergency room, where she was found to have a blocked artery and stroke. Emerson filed a workers’ compensation claim for mental distress and stroke-like systems present at her first visit to the emergency room immediately after completing her shift. The workers’ compensation judge denied her claim, finding Emerson had not proven she had an injury under La. R.S. 23:1021(8) and had not connected any purported injuries to a work-related stress. 

    La. R.S. 23:1021(8)(a) defines which injuries an employee is entitled to compensation for depending on the relevant circumstances. As defined, injuries only relate to the “physical structure” of the body. La. R.S. 23:1021(8)(b) defines mental injuries caused by stress. Such injuries are only compensable if the injury resulted from extraordinary sudden or unexpected stress related to employment.

    Emerson admitted nothing physical had happened to cause her supposed “pop” in her head while on shift. She explicitly denied having bit hit or fallen. Therefore, she did not appear to have suffered a physical injury. With respect to a potential mental injury, Emerson said the occurrences the day at-issue at work were more of the “same old.” She had been anxious and stressed about work before that day. 

    Emerson also did not establish a mental injury by providing a diagnosis from a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. Emerson also did not provide sufficient evidence of a heart-related conditions. Her medical records from the at-issue emergency room visit did not indicate she had been diagnoses with any heart-related condition. Furthermore, even if Emerson had suffered a stroke on the day she went to the emergency room immediately after her shift, the evidence suggested it was more likely caused by a preexisting condition than work stress. Therefore, the workers’ compensation judge did not err in denying Emerson’s claims. 

    A knowledgeable attorney can help you navigate the workers’ compensation system, which has specific requirements to establish your mental injury is entitled to compensation. 

    Additional Sources: Diedra Emerson v. Willis Knighton Medical Center

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Workers’ Compensation Claims: Workers’ Compensation Lawsuits and the Battle for Evidence

  • When Doctors Disagree: What Happens When There Is Conflicting Testimony In A Workers’ Compensation Case?

    Medical testimony is an essential part of determining whether an injured worker has a valid claim. What happens if the doctors’ diagnoses conflict and they reach different conclusions about whether an injured worker can return to work?

    Maxine Hall worked as a housekeeper for Global Solution Services. While working for Global at a hotel, a door closed on her foot. She went to the emergency room, where a doctor told her she did not have any broken bones. However, another doctor subsequently diagnosed her with a fractured toe. 

    Despite receiving medical treatment, Hall continue to suffer from pain in her foot. Hall received workers’ compensation benefits, but the benefits terminated approximately two years after the accident occurred. She then filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation against Global and Illinois National Insurance Company, its insurer. Hall sought to get her benefits reinstated. The Workers’ Compensation Judge dismissed Hall’s claims. Hall filed an appeal. 

    When appellate courts review workers’ compensation cases, if there are two reasonable views of the evidence, then the trial court’s choice between them is not clearly wrong or erroneous. See Chaisson v. Louisiana Rock Monsters, LLC. Here, the appellate court reviewed the various testimony and evidence presented at trial to see whether the trial court erred in dismissing Hall’s workers’ compensation claims.

    Hall saw various doctors, who diagnoses her with a variety of issues and had varying views on whether, and to what extent, she could return to work. One doctor who testified at trial, an orthopedic surgeon, initially said Bostick could return to work to do sedentary work, but later stated Hall was unable to return to work. A vascular surgeon diagnosed Hall with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. A few other doctors agreed with this diagnosis. The vascular surgeon referred Hall to see another doctor in order to receive a nerve block, which helped Hall. 

    However, Hall did not receive any additional nerve blocks. A neurologist disagreed Hall had Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and believed Hall’s remaining complaints were subjective. The neurologist testified from his perspective, Hall could return to work fully, but deferred to others to whether there were an orthopedic issues. 

    The Office of Workers’ Compensation appointed a doctor to complete an independent medical exam of Hall. That doctor found Hall was exaggerated her pain as he could distract her and change her pain levels. He also did not think Hall had Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. He believed Hall could return to work without any restrictions. 

    Under La. R.S. 23:1123, courts should give the conclusions from the independent medical exam significant want because they are from an objective third-party. Here, the independent medical examiner concluded Hall could return to work fully. Therefore, the appellate court held the trial court did not err in dismissing Hall’s Disputed Claim for Compensation based on the independent medical examiner’s conclusion Hall could return to work and conflicting other medical testimony. 

    If your workers’ compensation case includes conflicting medical testimony, a good attorney can advise you on the best strategy to prove your claim.

    Additional Sources: Maxine Hall v. Global Solution LLC and Illinois National Ins. Co.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Workers’ Compensation Claims: Prevailing Against All Odds: Triumphing in a Workers’ Compensation Claim

  • Is An Unmarried Romantic Partner Entitled to Death Benefits in Workers’ Compensation?

    It is always tragic when a loved one passes away, especially when there are children are involved. Death benefits are part of the workers’ compensation system intended to help the surviving family members when someone passes away as a result of an on-the-job accident. However, with the evolving definition of a family, there can sometimes be complicated legal issues about who is entitled to recover death benefits. This case involves a claim from a supposedly unmarried romantic partner who had a child with the worker who died in an accident at work. 

    Travis Chiokai died as a result of an accident at work. When he died, Chiokai was unmarried. However, Chiokai had been in a romantic relationship with Latashia Perez. Perez filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation against Chiokai’s employer, Irby Construction, as well as their insurer, Old Republic. Perez sought death benefits for herself, as well as for her unborn child. Once the child was born, DNA testing was conducted that confirmed the child’s father was Chiokai. The child subsequently received death benefits. 

    Irby Construction and its insurer argued Perez should not received benefits under La. R.S. 23:1253, which defines dependents who are entitled to receive death benefits. The statute explicitly states that a concubine, such as Perez, is not entitled to receive death benefits. Irby Construction and its insurer filed an exception of no right or cause of action. The Workers’ Compensation Judge denied the motion. 

    Perez’s claim alleged Chiokai was killed in an on-the-job accident and claimed she and her child were entitled to receive death benefits. Irby Construction and its insurer denied Perez’s allegations. They later claimed Perez and Chiokai were never married, so Perez was not entitled to receive death benefits. 

    Perez claimed she was entitled to receive the difference between the death benefits owed to their child and the maximum workers’ compensation rate under La. R.S. 23:1232(8). She also claimed La. R.S. 23:1253 did not apply because their child was Chiokai’s daughter. 

    The appellate court noted there was no evidence presented at the hearing. In this case, Irby Construction and its insurer had the burden of proof for establishing Chiokai and Perez had not been married. Because Irby Construction and its insurer had not presented any evidence about whether Perez and Chiokai had ever been married, the appellate court could not consider whether Perez was entitled to receive death benefits, despite the wording of La. R.S. 23:1253 that stated concubines were not entitled to receive death benefits. 

    This case illustrates the importance of providing evidence to support your claim. If you do not provide evidence in support of your claim, then the court cannot consider the merits of your claim. A knowledgeable attorney can help you determine what evidence to present in support of your claim and advise you on what benefits you might be entitled to. Although money can never replace a loved one, receiving death benefits is one way you can start to move forward and build a future after a loved one’s death.

    Additional Sources: Latashia v. Perez v. Irby Construction Co., et al.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Death Benefits: Company Trying to Avoid Worker’s Compensation Benefits For Family Of Deceased Employee Fails On Appeal

  • 1010 Form Required For Company To Cover Medical Expenses in Workers Compensation

    While workers’ compensation is intended to compensate injured workers, there are a number of procedural requirements with which an injured worker must comply in order for his or her company to cover the medical treatments. This case illustrates the importance of complying with procedural requirements and submitting all required paperwork.

    While working for Circle K Stores, Melody Smith went to a Capitol One bank located in Lafayette, Louisiana. Before Smith reached the bank to make the night deposit, she was robbed by a person who crashed his truck into the rear end of Smith’s car and shot at her two times. He then smashed her window and took the deposit bag from her. 

    Smith injured her knee, back, and neck in the incident. Circle K paid Smith workers’ compensation benefits following the incident. However, the parties disagreed about treatment for Smith’s injured knee. Smith filed a Form 1008 under La. R.S. 23:1034.2(F)(1) against Circle K, claiming it had failed to pre-authorize her evaluation for her knee injury with her selected physician. 

    The Workers’ Compensation Judge denied Smith’s claim, finding the treating physician had not properly requested the treatment for Smith’s knee injury because he had not completed and submitted the required form. Therefore, Circle K had reasonable established why it had not paid Smith’s claim, so Smith was not entitled to receive attorney fees and penalties. Before the judgment was signed, Smith filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Smith also filed an appeal.

    Smith claimed Circle K acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying her treatment for her injured knee. There was a dispute about whether her claimed injury to her right knee was a compensable injury, as defined in La. R.S. 23:1021(8)(a).The claims professional for Circle K’s workers’ compensation insurer, Ace American, explained Smith had not received treatment for her injured right knee because it had not received the required form from her doctor. That form, the 1010 Form, was required to cover the diagnostic MRI requested by Smith’s doctor.

    Smith acknowledged during her initial visit with her doctor after the incident, she had not mentioned any problems or injuries to her knee. Smith’s medical records also indicated Smith had been diagnoses with have arthritis in her knee, which had been evaluated and treated. 

    However, there was no evidence Smith had properly requested treatment for her knee from Circle K. Although Smith’s arthritis was compensable because the incident at work had exacerbated her condition, there was no evidence Circle K had acted arbitrarily and capriciously because it had only approved the properly submitted forms from Smith and her physicians. 

    Circle K had acted promptly in responding to Smith’s properly submitted forms. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s ruling that Smith was not entitled to receive penalties or attorneys’ fees from Circle K.

    A knowledgeable attorney can advise you on what forms you need to complete in order to receive workers’ compensation. If you fail to comply with procedural requirements or complete required paperwork, you might find yourself unable to receive workers’ compensation. 

    Additional Sources: Melody P. Smith v. Circle K Stores, Inc. and Ace American Ins. Co.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Workers’ Compensation Claims: Court of Appeal Discusses Application of Penalties in Workers’ Compensation Cases

  • Injured Worker Who Hid Injuries Still Entitled To Workers’ Compensation

    If you are injured on the job, it is best practice to inform your employer and supervisor about your injuries. They will likely inform you about possible workers’ compensation to which you might be entitled. Are you still eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits if you tried to hide your injury from your employer?

    Gary Jeansonne worked as a maintenance worker at a youth center located in Bunkie, Louisiana. Over two months after Jeansonne stopped working at the center, he filed a claim for workers’ compensation, claiming he had hurt his back while working at the center. He claimed the accident had occurred while he was working in the kitchen. Jeansonne claimed to have called his supervisor the next morning to tell him he would not be able to come in to work due to his back, but he did not tell his supervisor his back issues were from an injury at work. 

    Jeansonne started receiving medical treatment for his back injuries. His medical records indicate he told his doctor the accident that hurt his back occurred at home. Jeansonne subsequently claimed the report was not accurate and he had just said the incident occurred at home because he wanted to be able to go back to work. 

    Ultimately, Jeansonne had to undergo back surgery. He used his personal medical insurance to pay for his medical expenses and took personal leave to recover. He and his wife testified the did not think he would be able to receive the back surgery if he filed a workers’ compensation claim. They thought it would be quicker to use their private insurance. 

    Jeansonne eventually received permission from his doctor to return to work. However, he subsequently claimed to have reinjured himself at work. The workers’ compensation judge found Jeansonne was entitled to workers’ compensation for his first incident at work, but noted Jeansonne was not a very credible witness. Jeansonne filed an appeal.

    An employee is entitled to receive workers’ compensation if he proves he was injured during the course of his employment. See La. R.S. 23:1031(A). The appellate court noted this case presented unusual circumstances because Jeansonne tried to conceal the fact he had been hurt at work from his supervisors, insurer, and healthcare provider.  Although Jeansonne had exhibited poor judgment in trying to hide his injuries, the appellate court found Jeansonne had provided sufficient evidence that the second injury had resulted from an on-the-job accident. 

    Additionally, testimony indicated Jeansonne wanted to return to work and had a genuine belief he could lose his job if it was known he had suffered an on-the-job injury. Based on the evidence presented, the appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Judge had erred in finding there was insufficient proof Jeansonne had suffered a second compensable injury. The appellate court ruled Jeansonne was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for both incidents. 

    Although Jeansonne ultimately was able to receive workers’ compensation benefits, the process was greatly complicated by the fact he was not transparent with his employer about his on-the-job injuries. If you have been injured on the job, being straightforward about your injuries can help expedite your receipt of workers’ compensation benefits. 

    Additional Sources: Gary Jeansonne v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections Youth Services et al.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Workers’ Compensation Claims: How To Determine If Someone Is Faking Symptoms In A Workers Compensation Case

  • Injured Work Release Inmate’s Sole Remedy Is Workers’ Compensation

    Even while an inmate, you are still entitled to damages if you are injured on the job. If you are injured while working in a release program, are you entitled to compensation through the workers’ compensation scheme? 

    Lindsey French was serving a sentence for drug and firearm charges at the detention center in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. Inmates at the detention center could be released to work for the police as part of the highway maintenance crew. French volunteered to join the crew. While on the crew, French was responsible for operating a tractor.

    One day, the tractor French was using hit a tree stump. French was not wearing his seat belt. He fell through an opening in the tractor and fractured his pelvis.

    French filed a lawsuit against the police. He claimed the police were liable for not training inmates how to operate the tractors, not adequately supervising the inmates, not adequately inspecting the area where they were working, telling inmates it was more dangerous to wear a seatbelt, and not maintaining the tractor.

    The police filed a summary judgment motion claiming it was immune under La. R.S. 15:708, which governs prisoner workday release programs. The police alternatively argued French’s only remedy against them was workers’ compensation. French claimed he was not employed by the police and was more like a volunteer. The trial court granted the police’s summary judgment motion, explaining French’s sole remedy was workers’ compensation. French filed an appeal. 

    When courts determine if an employee-employer relationship exists, the main factors are the right of control and supervision. Prior cases have held work release inmates to be employees of the place where they work. See Reynolds v. Louisiana Plastic. 

    Here, the police could dismiss inmates such as French from working on the crew if they were unable to perform their job duties. For example, the police would sometimes dismiss workers who were found to not be able to operate the tractors. The police also had control over the inmates from the time they picked them up until the time they returned them to the detention center. They also supervised the inmates while they were working. The police provided the inmates with training on how to operate the tractors and provided the work location and equipment the inmates used. Therefore, the police controlled the inmate’s training and supervision and could dismiss inmates from working on the crew.

    The appellate court rejected French’s arguments he was a volunteer for the police because he was not expecting compensation. Here, French was being monetarily compensation for his service, even if the payment did not come directly from the police. Further, even if he had not been compensated for his services, that alone would not be determinative of whether he was an employee.

    Based on the evidence presented, there did not appear to be a disputed factual issue of whether French was employed by the police. Therefore, the appellate court held the trial court did not err in granting the police’s summary judgment motion because French’s sole remedy for his injuries was through the workers’ compensation system. 

    It can sometimes be complicated to determine if you are in an employee-employer relationship, such that you are entitled to workers’ compensation. A good attorney can advise you on relevant factors and how that affects your potential legal remedies. 

    Additional Sources: Lindsey French v Claiborne Parish Police Jury and Sheriff

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Inmate Release Programs: Inmate Injured on Work Release in Chopin Denied Damages from Sheriff and Department of Corrections

  • Is It Possible To Modify a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s Judgment?

    If you have been injured on the job, you might be entitled to workers’ compensation. In order to receive compensation, there are a number of procedural requirements with which you must comply. 

    Elaine Rodrigue worked as a paralegal for the school board in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. While working, she tripped over a rug and had to have surgery. When she returned to work from her surgery, she was transferred to work at a metal building. While working there, Rodrigue was exposed to noxious odors and forms. After she left her job, her symptoms from the exposure continued to get worse. 

    Rodrigue filed a workers’ compensation claim against the school board. The Workers’ Compensation Judge ruled in favor of Rodrigue, finding her exposure to the noxious odors and fumes at work had caused her medical issues, so she could recover for her related medical expenses. The judgment included twenty items from Rodrigue’s doctor’s prescriptions that were a reasonable and necessary part of her treatment. 

    The school board filed a motion to modify the judgment, arguing it did not require Rodrigue to comply with procedural requirements for getting medical expenses approved. The court denied the school board’s request to modify the judgment but did require Rodrigue to submit bills directly to the school board from her medical providers. 

    On appeal, the school board argued the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in holding the treatment Rodrigue’s doctor had prescribed was not subject to the review process in La. R.S. 23:1203.1 or the Medical Treatment Guidelines, which were established to help control high medical expenses. The school board argued any of Rodrigue’s future expenses should have been submitted for pre-authorization. Rodrigue argued the school board’s obligation to her was not based on the Louisiana workers’ compensation statutes, but rather the final judgment issued by the Workers’ Compensation Judge. 

    The appellate court agreed that the school board’s obligation to pay for the items from Rodrigue’s doctor’s prescriptions was from the trial court’s judgment, not from the workers’ compensation statutes. Additionally, Rodrigue had not made a new claim that fell outside the prior judgment’s scope. 

    The appellate court also addressed Rodrigue’s argument that the judgment incorrectly required her to submit bills from her medical providers directly to the school board. The school board argued if Rodrigue could keep paying expenses not generated by a healthcare provider and submit those bills directly to the school board for reimbursement, it would conflict with the Reimbursement Schedule in La. R.S. 23: 1034.2, which is intended to help control high medical costs. The court found the language in the judgment to be unclear, so it modified the language to clarify that the school board could adjust the cost of applicable medically reasonable and necessary items under the Reimbursement Schedule.

    As seen here, judgments in workers’ compensation claims can sometimes have unclear portions. A good lawyer can help you navigate the often complex workers’ compensation system so you receive the damages you are entitled to if you have been injured on the job. 

    Additional Sources: Lafourche Parish School Board v. Elaine Rodrigue

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Workers’ Compensation Claims: Workers’ Compensation Claim Denied For Failure To Seek Preapproval

  • Injured Employee Entitled To Select One Physician Of Choice in Workers’ Compensation Claims

    If you are injured on the job, one of your primary concerns is likely finding competent medical care. Under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act, injured workers can select one physician of any specialty without their employer’s approval. What happens if your employer refuses to pay for your selected physician? 

    Marvin Ray Scott brought a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Packaging Corporation of America (“PCA.”) Scott claimed he had lost his hearing because of his work at the Boise Paper Mill in DeRidder, Louisiana. Scott then filed a motion to have an expedited hearing under La. R.S. 23:1121. Scott claimed PCA had not authorized his initial visit to his selected physician. PCA responded, claiming Scott had improperly used summary proceedings because he was not just trying to get approval for his selected physician, but he was also seeking attorney’s fees and penalties. At the hearing, the workers’ compensation judge ruled in favor of Scott and ordered PCA to pay Scott’s relevant medical bills and pay separate penalties and attorney’s fees, totaling $7,000. PCA filed an appeal.

    Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act sets forth rights and remedies for injured workers. Under La. R.S. 23:1121, an employee is permitted to select one physician of any specialty without their employer’s approval. If the employer denies that, the employee is entitled to an expedited proceeding. Under La. R.S. 23:1201(F), the employer can also be required to pay penalties and attorneys’ fees if it does not comply with its statutory obligations to an injured worker. 

    PCA raised numerous arguments on the appeal of why the workers’ compensation judge had erred in ruling in favor of Scott. Although PCA claimed Scott had waited too long to bring his workers’ compensation claim, the court found no evidence Scott’s hearing loss had prevented him from completing his work. Because the employee being disabled is one of the conditions in La. R.S. 23:1031.1(E) that starts the one-year clock running for bringing a workers’ compensation claim, Scott’s time for bringing his claim had not yet ended. Additionally, there had not yet been any discovery into this issue. 

    PCA also argued it was improper for the court to have awarded Scott attorneys’ fees and penalties. While PCA admitted there were other cases where the court had awarded the employee penalties and attorneys’ fees where the employer did not permit the injured employee to select one physician of any specialty without approval, it claimed those were inapplicable here because it had filed an exception claiming Scott had improperly used summary proceedings. 

    The appellate court disagreed because Scott was entitled to a visit with his choice of physician even before a formal investigation of the merits of the claim. Therefore, the appellate court found the workers’ compensation judge had not erred in denying PCA’s exception of unauthorized use of summary proceedings and awarding Scott attorneys’ fees and penalties. 

    Navigating the Louisiana workers’ compensation system can be complex, and it is essential to have the guidance of an experienced attorney who can not only help you understand your rights but also assist you in seeking compensation if your employer fails to adhere to the statutory requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Act. An attorney’s expertise can make a significant difference in ensuring you receive the necessary support and benefits following a workplace injury.

    Additional Sources: Marvin Ray Scott v. Packaging Corp. of Am.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Selection of Medical Professionals in Workers’ Compensation Claims: Workers’ Compensation Claimant Denied Choice of Physical Therapist to Conduct Functional Capacity Evaluation (“FCE”)