 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Riverwood International2/27/2002
lent reasons for judgment, the WCJ considered the mandate of the legislature in enacting La. R.S. 23:1208, as well as the elements set forth in Resweber, supra. Additionally, the WCJ addressed the credibility of Smith v. that of Dr. Finger's contemporaneous medical records. The WCJ reasoned, even giving Smith's testimony "the greatest benefit of the doubt, . . ." that she could reach no other conclusion but that Smith had willfully made a misrepresentation in order to obtain workers' compensation benefits.
The record in this case clearly supports the WCJ's finding that Smith violated La. R.S 23:1208 and that the resultant penalty of forfeiture of benefits should apply. Dr. Finger's medical records show that Smith complained of and was treated by him for a lower back injury as a result of her 1996 automobile accident. The trial transcript shows that the question posed to Smith about any prior back injury was straightforward and not subject to misinterpretation by her. Nor was the questioning limited to the period of time during which Smith was employed by Riverwood, as she argued in brief. The misrepresentation was not inconsequential, but addressed a prior injury to the specific part of her body (i.e., her lower back) that was allegedly injured later on the job . Moreover, Smith had previously and consistently misrepresented her prior history regarding the previous back injury to Drs. Nawas and Hand. Therefore, we conclude that the WCJ committed no error in finding that Smith had violated La. R.S. 23:1208 and she, therefore, forfeited all rights to workers' compensation benefits. See, Bass v. Allen Cannery Company, Inc., 30,635 (La. App. 2d Cir. 06/26/98), 715 So. 2d 142, writ denied, 98-2069 (La. 11/06/98), 728 So. 2d 395.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the WCJ in favor of Riverwood and Travelers at Smith's costs.
AFFIRMED.
|