 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haynes v. United Parcel Service8/17/2005
Before BROWN, GASKINS, and PEATROSS, JJ.
Finding error in the granting of summary judgment in favor of defendants in this worker's compensation case, we reverse and remand.
Facts
On August 15, 2001, Frank Haynes ("Haynes") sustained a work-related injury to his neck and back when several boxes fell on him while he was unloading a truck. Haynes began receiving weekly indemnity benefits from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual"), the insurer for his employer, United Parcel Service ("UPS"). Thereafter, Haynes was involved in two automobile accidents, one on November 26, 2001, and the other on May 6, 2002. He did not inform UPS or Liberty Mutual of these accidents or of the settlements he negotiated with the involved drivers and their insurance companies. On August 28, 2002, after Haynes settled the November 26 claim but before he settled the May 6 claim, Liberty Mutual terminated all benefits to him.
On September 6, 2002, Haynes filed a disputed claim in which he alleged that the termination of his benefits was without justification and was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants answered, alleging that claimant had made a material misrepresentation justifying termination of his workers' compensation benefits in accordance with La. R.S. 23:1208.
On May 4, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (which was amended at a later date) seeking dismissal of Haynes' claim, asserting that he had forfeited his rights to workers' compensation benefits because he settled the car accident claims without obtaining the consent of his employer. On September 8, 2004, defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted by the Worker's Compensation Judge ("WCJ") and the matter was dismissed with prejudice at claimant's cost. Haynes has appealed. Finding that the WCJ erred in its interpretation and application of La. R.S. 23:1101 and 1102 in this case, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and remand the matter for further proceedings.
Discussion
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo. Potter v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Scotlandville, 615 So. 2d 318 (La. 1993); NAB Natural Resources v. Williamette Industries, Inc., 28,555 (La. App. 2d Cir. 8/21/96), 679 So. 2d 477. The reviewing court determines independently whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. La. C. C. P. Art. 966; Boudreaux v. Brinkman, 02-31 (La. App. 5th Cir. 05/29/02), 820 So. 2d 1118. A fact is material for summary judgment purposes when its existence or nonexistence may be essential to claimant's cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery. La. C. C. P. Art. 966.
A worker's exclusive remedy against his employer is under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act. La. R.S. 23:1032. However, La. 23:1101 authorizes the employee or employer to proceed against a third person whose actions caused the compensable injury .
La. R.S. 23:1101 and 1102 provide, inter alia, that if an employee compromises a claim with a third person for an injury which is compensable under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act, the employer will only be liable for compensation in excess of the amount recovered against that third person if written approval of the compromise is obtained from the employer at the time of or prior to the compromise. (Emphasis added). Specifically, La. R.S. 23:1102(A) provides that damages recovered by an employee against a third person shall be so apportioned in the judgment that the claim of the employer for the compensation actually paid shall take precedence over that of th
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|