 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meyers v. Fairfield Inn12/12/2001
Contractors, 96-1730 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/30/97); 693 So.2d 299. However, this case does not involve the penal provisions of La.R.S. 23:1102(B) regarding an employee's failure to notify the employer of a suit against a third person or failure to obtain an employer's written approval of a compromise agreement. Thus, we must, as we stated in Darbonne, interpret the portion of La.R.S. 23:1102(B) involved in this case liberally so as to effectuate the beneficent purpose of relieving workers of the economic burden of work-related injuries.
However, other rules of statutory interpretation are equally applicable. For instance, under La.Civ.Code art. 13, laws on the same subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each other. Defendants correctly assert that pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1101(C), it is their obligation to pay benefits that trigger the application of La.R.S. 23:1101-23:1103. In La.R.S. 23:1103, the employer is given a preference in the tort award obtained by the employee. The first paragraph reads as follows:
A. (1) In the event that the employer or the employee or his dependent becomes party plaintiff in a suit against a third person, as provided in R.S. 23:1102, and damages are recovered, such damages shall be so apportioned in the judgment that the claim of the employer for the compensation actually paid shall take precedence over that of the injured employee or his dependent; and if the damages are not sufficient or are sufficient only to reimburse the employer for the compensation which he has actually paid, such damages shall be assessed solely in his favor; but if the damages are more than sufficient to so reimburse the employer, the excess shall be assessed in favor of the injured employee or his dependent, and upon payment thereof to the employee or his dependent, the liability of the employer for compensation shall cease for such part of the compensation due, computed at six percent per annum, and shall be satisfied by such payment. The employer's credit against its future compensation obligation shall be reduced by the amount of attorney fees and court costs paid by the employee in the third party suit.
In the present case, the only compensable injury that obligated Fairfield and Zurich to pay benefits to Ms. Meyers pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1101 was her lower back injury suffered while in the course and scope of her employment and the aggravation of that injury when she was in a non-work-related car accident. In other words, Fairfield and Zurich were only obligated to pay benefits on Ms. Meyers' lower back problems and not her knee and upper back problems; therefore, they are only entitled to a dollar for dollar credit on the amount of the third-party settlement funds attributable to the work-related injury for which they were obligated to pay benefits.
This case is distinguishable from Jeansonne v. American Native Constr. Co., 97-1228 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/98); 710 So.2d 306, the case relied upon by Fairfield and Zurich to show that they are entitled to a credit on the entire amount of Ms. Meyers' settlement funds. In Jeansonne the insurer was awarded a dollar for dollar credit on the total amount of the third-party recovery minus attorney fees and costs of prosecution. In that case, all of the claimant's injuries were caused by a third party when the claimant was involved in a car accident while in the course and scope of her employment. See also Minor v. Frank's Door and Bldg. Supply Co., 94-2410 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/23/95); 657 So.2d 737, writ denied, 95-1850 (La. 11/3/95); 661 So.2d 1383 (where all of the employee's injuries were caused by a third party while employee was in the course and scope of his employment and the court, interpreting the first senten
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|