 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Millican v. General Motors Corp.11/1/2000
We granted an application for supervisory review filed by defendant, General Motors Corporation ("GM"), following the denial of an exception of prescription by the workers' compensation judge ("WCJ"). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural Background
Claimant, Ronald Millican, is employed by GM as a line worker. Millican injured his back in a work-related accident on September 28, 1998. Millican took time off work beginning in November 1998, underwent lumbar disc surgery in January 1999 and returned to his employment in April 1999. During his period of recuperation, Millican received sickness and accident benefits in the amount of $500 per week and most of his medical expenses were paid by GM.
On December 6, 1999, Millican filed a claim with the Office of Workers' Compensation ("OWC"), seeking workers' compensation benefits from his employer. General Motors filed an exception of prescription, noting that on its face, Millican's claim was prescribed under La. R.S. 23:1209. According to Millican, his delay in filing a claim was due to his reliance upon a "Statement of Rights" information sheet he received from the OWC.
A hearing was held on May 15, 2000. In denying the exception, the WCJ first found that none of the theories for interruption or suspension of prescription asserted by claimant's counsel were applicable, then found that prescription was interrupted by Millican's reliance to his detriment upon the "Statement of Rights" form he received from the OWC. General Motors filed an application for supervisory writs which was granted by this court. According to GM, the WCJ erred in finding that the claimant's misinterpretation of the information sheet he received from the OWC served to interrupt the prescriptive period for the filing of his claim. General Motors also urges, however, that the WCJ correctly found that none of the jurisprudential exceptions to prescription were applicable.
Discussion
In keeping with the general intent of the Workers' Compensation Act, the time limits for institution of a claim for benefits have been liberally interpreted over the years. Glascock v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 25,677 (La. App. 2d Cir. 03/30/94), 635 So.2d 474; Wesley v. Claiborne Electric Co-op, Inc., 446 So.2d 857 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1984), writ denied, 450 So.2d 955 (La. 1984); H. Alston Johnson, 14 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Workers' Compensation Law and Practice, ยง384 at p. 345 (3d Ed. 1994). As applicable to the present case, La. R.S. 23:1209(A) provides that the claim of an injured employee for weekly benefits is not prescribed if filed within one year after the accident or one year after the last payment of compensation. Smith v. Fruehauf Trailer Operations, 27,864 (La. App. 2d Cir. 01/24/96), 666 So.2d 1246; Lynn v. Berg Mechanical, Inc., 582 So.2d 902 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1991).
The purpose of the requirement that suit be brought by a claimant within one year after his accident is three-fold: to enable the employer to determine when his potential liability would cease; to prevent, as a matter of public policy, suits based on stale claims where evidence might be destroyed or difficult to produce; and, to fix a statute of repose giving rise to a conclusive presumption of waiver of his claim on the part of an employee who fails to bring suit within the fixed period. Clark v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 97-0397 (La. 01/21/98), 707 So.2d 17; Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., 208 La. 538, 23 So.2d 209 (1945); Johnson, Id. at p. 361.
A claimant may survive a plea of prescription by showing that his petition is timely under any of the provisions of La. R.S. 23:1209. Even if a claimant is unable
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.
|
|