 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Authement v. Wal-Mart9/26/2003
La. R.S. 23:1201(F), whereas only attorney fees are recoverable under La. R.S. 23:1201.2. Id.
In the instant case, the August 30, 2002 judgment provided for penalties and attorney fees as follows:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendant, Wal-Mart, did not reasonably controvert the worker's compensation claim of Nancy Authement, therefore, the claimant, Nancy Authement, is entitled to penalties in the amount of $2,000.00 as well as attorney fees in the amount of $2,000.00.
We note the workers' compensation judge's use of the phrase "did not reasonably controvert" in this judgment. Similar language is found in La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). Although the judge offered no written or oral reasons for judgment, the use of this language implies that La. R.S. 23:1201 was utilized by the judge in his decision to award both penalties and attorney fees against Wal-Mart. However, based on our review of the statutes in question and the cases interpreting same, we conclude the judge committed legal error in applying the wrong statute.
A review of the record reveals that benefits in this case were commenced timely as required by La. R.S. 23:1201. Ms. Authement began receiving medical benefits and weekly indemnity benefits following her injury and continued to receive same through February 14, 2002, when all benefits were terminated. Thus, the only statute at issue in this case is La. R.S. 23:1201.2. That statute has no provision for penalties. See
Hundley v. Bisso Properties, 2002-2110, p. 10 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/27/03), So.2d.
Accordingly, Wal-Mart's discontinuance of benefits cannot be the grounds for an imposition of a penalty. That portion of the judgment must be reversed.
The next inquiry then becomes whether Wal-Mart acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause in discontinuing the payment of benefits to Ms. Authement.
Thus, utilizing the provisions of La. R.S. 23:1201.2, we must make our own independent de novo review and assessment of the record and determine whether WalMart's actions herein warrant the imposition of attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201.2. For purposes of La. R.S. 23:1201.2, " rbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstance presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation." Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La. 12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 890.
Statues providing for penalties and attorney fees are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Thomas v. Wal-Mart, 2002-1356, p. 12 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/9/03), 849 So.2d 592, 601. The purpose of imposition of penalties and attorney fees is to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers. The crucial inquiry is whether the employer has articulable and objective reason for denying or discontinuing benefits at the time it took that action. Williams, 98-2271 at 9, 737 So.2d at 46.
As previously indicated, Wal-Mart began paying medical benefits and weekly indemnity benefits to Ms. Authement following her injury and continued to pay same through February 14, 2002, when all benefits were terminated. According to testimony from Peggy Horton, her decision to terminate Ms. Authement's benefits was based on the accident report filed on July 19, 2001, and on Dr. Sweeney's medical report dated February 7, 2002. Ms. Horton noted, "I based my determination on the first report of injury stating that there was no specific accident." She added, "I felt like the claim should have been denied from the beginning." Ms. Horton admitted that she did not consider the medical reports from Dr.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|