Workers Compensation

December 19, 2019

Appellate Court Upholds Finding that Accident Did Not Cause Employee’s Injuries

clouds-crane-drill-414936-1024x384 Everyone gets injured, but what happens when you are injured on the job and had been in an accident in the past? Does the court take that into consideration if you file a lawsuit, or does the court presume an accident was work-related? In one local case, the workers’ compensation judge found that the injury at issue was not caused by the work accident. The injured party, Todd Porche (“Porche”), appealed this determination.

Generally, when reviewing workers’ compensation cases, the appellate court must determine whether the commission’s conclusions are reasonable using the clearly wrong standard. Richardson v. North Oaks, 91 So.3d 361, 365 (La. App. 2012). If there are two acceptable views of the evidence, the fact finder’s decision may not be found manifestly erroneous, or clearly wrong. Here, Porche alleged that the workers’ compensation judge erred in denying the reopening of the case, which is within the discretion of the court. Reopening the case would have allowed Porche to prove causation.

On September 11, 2013, Todd Porche (“Porche”) was working for Guichard Operating Co., LLC (“Guichard”) when he fell between eight to fourteen feet onto a steel rig floor, where he allegedly injured his back and head. As a result, Porche received workers’ compensation benefits from the date of the accident through March 13, 2014. When Guichard terminated Porche’s benefits, the company alleged that Porche violated La. R.S. 23:1208 and 23:1208.1. If true, it would mean Porche forfeited all benefits and would owe the company restitution, interest, and costs. After a four-day trial, the workers’ compensation judge denied Porche’s claims.

December 14, 2019

Court Reinstates Public Works Director for the City of Opelousas

by Berniard Law Firm

28-Email-06_24_19-picture Can a court reinstate a former city employee’s job after being wrongly terminated? Well, fortunately for Mr. Turner, the answer is yes.

In 2003, Ron Turner began work as the Director of Public Works for the City of Opelousas. Eight years later, the Board of Alderman had a meeting, and Item 7 on the agenda was a “discussion regarding Turner’s employment.” During the meeting, Mr. Turner specified that they failed to notify him that his employment was up for discussion, and they removed the item from the agenda. Once they removed the item from the agenda, Mr. Turner left the meeting and did not stay for the rest of it.

As the meeting progressed, the board got to Item 16 of the agenda, which discussed the mayor’s appointments for 2011. The mayor presented an organizational chart that included all the departments and their appointments, and the box for Public Works had a replacement for Mr. Turner. The board approved the new appointments, and the mayor presented a termination letter to Mr. Turner.

December 12, 2019

Exxon Immune from Baton Rouge Refinery Asbestos Exposure Lawsuit

by Berniard Law Firm

clinic-doctor-explaining-2182972-1024x683 When an employee is injured on the job, workers’ compensation insurance often delivers more expediently than going through the courts. Unfortunately for the employee, it is also often less money than an injured employee could be awarded by suing the employer. As a Baton Rouge man recently learned, your type of employer can determine whether or not you’re able to sue your employer for work-related injuries.

J.E. Merit, a contractor, employed Mr. James Fletcher at a Baton Rouge Exxon refinery from 1988 to 1999. Mr. Fletcher claimed that, during this time, Exxon exposed him to asbestos, and that this exposure was the direct cause of his pleural mesothelioma. To recover for this injury, Mr. Fletcher filed a lawsuit against Exxon in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court. The District Court found that, while Mr. Fletcher did work for J.E. Merit, he was also a statutory employee of Exxon. Therefore, the District Court ruled that workers’ compensation, rather than the court process, was the means of recovery for Mr. Fletcher.

The type of employee-employer relationship makes a difference on whom one can sue. Under La. R.S.23:1032, workers’ compensation is the “exclusive remedy” for injuries sustained by direct employees. This statute protects companies while ensuring an expedient, albeit less compensatory, path for employees. Sometimes, however, the line is not perfectly clear between a direct employee and someone unrelated to an employer. When an employee falls in this gray area, he or she may be classified as a “statutory employee.”

November 22, 2019

Employer Agreement Forced on Terminated Employee Found to Violate Wage Payment Statute

by Berniard Law Firm

For some people, getting fired from work is like receiving the death sentence. In the following case, an employee was fired without any reason by his employer. The employer also tried to shortchange him by not giving him his earned wages. However, the employer fought back and, more or less, was vindicated under Louisiana law.

Ralph J. Hanks worked at Louisiana Companies as an insurance producer for more than two decades. However, on November 10, 2009, his employer terminated him without any explanation. As part of his termination, he was given a Separation Agreement (“Agreement”) to sign, which stated that Louisiana Companies would pay the wages he had thus far earned. The Agreement also stated that Hanks would sell his Louisiana Companies stocks to Louisiana Companies. Furthermore, Hanks would agree not to sue Louisiana Companies or solicit current Louisiana Companies employees. If Hanks were to sue or solicit customers, then Louisiana Companies stated that it would not pay the wages he had earned.

Hanks signed the Agreement on December 1, 2009. In February 2010, Hanks began working for another employer, First Federal. First Federal shared that it had hired Hanks through a local billboard and newspapers. As a result, some of Louisiana Companies’ customers moved to First Federal for their business. Soon after, Louisiana Companies notified Hanks that he had violated the Agreement and stated that it would not pay his earned wages. Hanks sued Louisiana Companies. The district court found that Louisiana Companies’ Separation Agreement was null and void because Louisiana Companies, by making Hanks sign the Agreement, violated Louisiana’s wage payment statute. Louisiana Companies appealed.

November 18, 2019

Can You Choose Your Own Pharmacy in a Worker’s Compensation Claim?

by Berniard Law Firm

49-Email-06-24-19-picture UPDATE:

The following case is no longer good law. For the current law on this matter see, https://www.insurancedisputelawyerblog.com/ choice-in-pharmacy-for-a-work-related-injury-belongs-to-the-employer

If you suffer an injury on the job, you will likely face a mess of medical bills. The last thing you want to think about is how you are going to pay for the expenses, including prescription medications. Although navigating the Louisiana workers’ compensation system can prove challenging and frustrating, it is essential that you understand its nuances in order to ensure you are reimbursed for your expenses.

November 14, 2019

A Plaquemine Worker’s Request is Dismissed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Statutory of Limitation

by Berniard Law Firm

41-Email-05-22-19-1024x772 In deciding whether to dismiss a specific case, the Appellate Court should consider many factors. Among them are subject matter jurisdiction and statutory of limitation. The claims might be dismissed if they are filed to a wrong court which does not have the legal power to adjudicate on this case, or if they are filed too late (peremption) because laws encourage people to file a lawsuit timely.

In 1996, Leonard Bracken (“Bracken”) exposed himself to sulfur mustard, widely known as mustard gas, at a facility which was owned by Georgia Gulf Corporation in Plaquemine, Louisiana. Bracken agreed to a global settlement. On October 27, 1999, a workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) approved the settlement. Bracken alleged that when he signed on the settlement, he had no idea that the settlement would deprive his right to file any workers’ compensation claims in the future and this is because his former attorney deliberately misled him. On February 2, 2015, Bracken filed a petition in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (“19th JDC”), seeking to vacate the WCJ’s approval of the settlement and grant his right to file any workers’ compensation claims arising from the bad accident in 1996, because this is a judgment obtained by fraud or ill practice. Bracken listed various parties as defendants, e.g. Georgia Gulf Corporation and Worker Compensation Tribunal. In response, defendants timely filed exceptions raising the objections of, among other things, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, prescription/peremption and sanctions. On June 1, 2015, after a hearing was held, the 19th JDC held that all the exceptions were sustained and Bracken’s petition was dismissed. Then the 19th JDC dismissed Bracken’s motion for a new trial but granted Bracken a devolutive appeal (in which the appellate courts can determine on some issues while the trial court continue on other issues, rather than suspend).

The jurisdiction of the subject matter is a court’s legal authority and power to hear, analyze and make judgment regarding a particular class of cases. La. C.C.P. art. 2. Even if both parties reach an agreement to give a court the legal power to hear their case, this agreement is not valid at all. A judgment by a court which has no power to hear a case is not valid. La. C.C.P. art. 3. To invalidate a judgment which is reached by ill practice or fraud, the case should be filed to the court which made that judgment. Bracken’s settlement was approved by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration (“OWCA”), not 19th JDC, so Bracken should file this lawsuit to OWCA. In addition, all claims which arises from the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law may be filed to OWCA, since WCJ have the exclusive and original jurisdiction. La. R.S. 23:1310.3(F).

November 12, 2019

Court Orders New Trial to Determine Eligibility for Workers’ Compensation Benefits

by Berniard Law Firm

68-Email-05-22-19-picture-1024x683 Often workers’ compensation claims focus on the nature of the injury that one argues makes them eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits. However, in situations where there is more ambiguity surrounding one’s employment status, there can be an additional difficulty in determining if one’s employment classification makes one eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits.

Filiberto Serna, Jr. (“Decedent”) died in a construction accident in September 2013 while attempting to move multiple trailers located at a United States Navy facility in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. When the accident occurred, the Decedent was being paid by Filser Construction, a subcontractor of Aries Building Services, Inc. The Decedent’s wife and minor child brought a workers’ compensation case against Aries, but the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”) found in favor of Aries. Specifically, the OWC found that there was insufficient proof of an employee-employer relationship with Filser such that Aries was the Decedent’s employer. OWC also found that the Decedent was a partner of Filser. The wife and child appealed.

On appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, the first issue was whether the Decedent was a business partner of Filser or an employee under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act. In the context of workers’ compensation, an injured worker is considered a business partner when he or she shares in the profit or loss of the partnership. However, a partner can still be considered an employee of a partnership to which he belongs.

November 4, 2019

Court Finds in Favor of School Teacher in Worker’s Compensation Claim

by Berniard Law Firm

44-Email-1024x723 If injured at work, many people will turn to a lawyer to learn about the legal options and damages available to them. Yet, a good lawyer can do more than just obtain damages, such as negotiate with the employer to facilitate accommodations needed in order to return to work.

Louisiana school teacher Dena Wempren was injured when a student pulled a chair out from under her, causing her to fall in a seated position. Ms. Wempren filed a “Disputed Claim for Compensation” which she later amended after being instructed by the School Board to return to work even though her pain management doctor had instructed otherwise. When a court-appointed doctor examined her, she was told she could return to work but only in a modified capacity. The School Board responded to the doctor’s findings by demanding she return to work, and Ms. Wempren was forced to comply or else lose some of her worker’s compensation. After returning to work, Ms. Wempren filed a third amended complaint when she felt her job demanded more than she was capable of given her injured condition.

At trial, the court looked at whether Ms. Wempren was able to work and if the School modified her work position enough to accommodate her injuries. The trial court sided with Ms. Wempren finding the job description Ms. Wempren was working under did not relay the physicality that would be required on the job, after she presented medical evidence which indicated she should not have returned to work without treatment. The School Board appealed the decision.

November 2, 2019

Classification of Offshore Drilling Platform as “Immovable Property” Under Louisiana Law Results in Dismissal of Worker’s Personal Injury Lawsuit

by Berniard Law Firm

image-for-post-69-from-email-5-14-19-1024x384 Offshore drilling platforms enable petroleum companies to access oil deposits beneath the ocean floor. Although these platforms are anchored to the sea floor, they are technically movable and can be relocated. Whether a platform is considered “immovable property” under Louisiana law became a central issue in a case involving an injured worker because different prescription periods apply to personal injury claims depending on the nature of the property at which the injury occurred.

In 2002, McDermott, Inc. designed and delivered the Front Runner Spar, an offshore facility used for removing and processing petroleum from the seabed of the Gulf of Mexico, to Murphy Exploration & Production Company. Murphy affixed the platform to the sea floor at the edge of the continental shelf offshore from Louisiana. James Hefren was hired by Murphy as the lead operator. In June, 2011, Hefren was injured when he was struck in the face by the flange of a valve. He filed a lawsuit suit against Murphy for negligence under the Jones Act, as well as specifically alleging that McDermott failed to properly design and construct the facility. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana entered summary judgment for Murphy, dismissing Hefren’s tort claims as barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.

McDermott filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Hefren’s claims were barred by Louisiana’s rule that actions arising out of deficiencies in construction or design must be brought within five years after the date the property was accepted by the owner. See La. R.S. 9:2772. Holding that the Front Runner Spar was an “immovable object” under Louisiana law, and considering that nine years had passed between Murphy’s acceptance of the facility and the date Hefren’s lawsuit was filed, the district court dismissed the claim against McDermott.

November 1, 2019

U.S. Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Defendant Due to Lack of Jurisdiction in International Personal Injury Case

by Berniard Law Firm

image-for-post-68-from-email-5-14-19-1024x683 What happens when a person is injured due to a company’s negligence and the company is based outside of the United States? The plaintiff generally must file a lawsuit in federal court, but there are certain jurisdictional requirements that have to be met. A plaintiff’s ability to file a lawsuit against an international company in a U.S. district court depends on how much “contact” the company has with the United States.

Danny Patterson, a U.S. citizen, was working aboard the Luxembourg-flagged vessel M/V Simon Steven off the coast of Russia when he was struck by a cable and sustained injuries. He sued his employer and the several other companies involved in the project, including Aker Subsea (“Aker”) and FMC Kongsberg (“FMC”), for damages in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Both Aker and FMC moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, and after jurisdiction discovery, the district court found that jurisdiction over the defendants did not exist and granted the motions to dismiss. Patterson then sought to have the district court’s decision certified as final so he could appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Meanwhile, FMC was dismissed from the case through a separate motion which went unopposed by Patterson.

Before the Fifth Circuit, Patterson argued that Aker had sufficient contacts with the United States to establish general personal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). He pointed to the fact that Aker had entered into multiple secondment agreements involving a U.S. location. Secondment agreements are used when an employee is temporarily assigned to work for another organization, or a different part of the organization, by their employer. In this case, Aker’s agreements spanned a three-year period of time, concerning employees working in Houston, Texas. Patterson argued that the employees assigned in Houston for a three year period established sufficient contacts for federal jurisdiction.