STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
11-285
DEVRA RENEE STOCKMAN
VERSUS
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 09-08568 JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE
PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, J. David Painter, James T. Genovese, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.
Amy, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND RENDERED.
Donald J. Anzelmo Snellings, Breard, Sartor, Inabnett & Trascher, L.L.P. 1503 North 19th Street Monroe, Louisiana 71201 (318) 387-8000 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Medical Technology, Inc.
Chris J. Roy, Sr. Chris J. Roy, Sr. Law Office, L.L.C. 1920 Jackson Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 (318) 767-1114 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Devra Renee Stockman KEATY, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant filed a disputed claim for
compensation, seeking authorization of a nerve block for diagnostic purposes,
attorney fees, and penalties. After a hearing on the matter, the workers’
compensation judge (WCJ) authorized the nerve block, but found the claimant’s
complaints were not related to the workplace accident and denied all requests for
penalties and attorney fees. The claimant appeals, complaining that the WCJ
decided issues not properly brought before him and that he erred in denying the
claimant’s request for penalties and attorney fees.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The claimant, Devra Stockman (Stockman) was injured in a workplace
accident on November 14, 2008. On October 9, 2009, Stockman filed a disputed
claim for compensation, seeking authorization for a nerve block that had been
recommended by her treating orthopedist, Dr. B. Todd Drury. Defendant, Medical
Technology, Inc. (MTI), answered Stockman’s petition on January 4, 2010. It did
not file a reconventional demand. On July 21, 2010, Stockman filed a
supplemental and amended petition seeking penalties and attorney fees in addition
to the nerve block authorization. At trial, counsel for MTI indicated that it did not
object to the supplemental petition.
A hearing on the issue took place on July 22, 2010. The WCJ took the
matter under advisement and requested post-trial briefs from each party. On
September 23, 2010, the WCJ issued his ruling orally. Those reasons were
reduced to writing and signed by the WCJ on November 10, 2010. In his judgment,
the WCJ found that Dr. Drury was Stockman’s orthopedic physician of choice, that
Stockman’s cervical complaints were not related to the workplace accident, that
Stockman was entitled to undergo the nerve block for diagnostic purposes, and that all other issues, including Stockman’s request for penalties and attorney fees were
denied.
Stockman filed a motion for new trial on November 19, 2010, which was set
for hearing. On December 22, 2010, the WCJ denied Stockman’s motion for new
trial. Stockman appealed. Two issues are now before us: whether the WCJ
decided issues beyond those that had been properly pled and whether the WCJ
erred in denying Stockman’s claim for penalties and attorney fees.
For the following reasons we find that the WCJ decided issues that were not
before him and was manifestly erroneous in declining to assess penalties. We
award Stockman penalties in the amount of $2,000.00. We reverse the remainder
of the judgment except for the portion granting the nerve block and addressing
attorney fees; these issues are affirmed.
DISCUSSION
The proposition that a judgment beyond the pleadings creates a nullity is a
well-established legal principle in Louisiana law. An explanation of what
constitutes “beyond the pleadings” was set forth by this court in Domingue v.
Bodin, 08-62 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/08), 996 So.2d 654. In Domingue, we stated:
“[U]nder proper circumstances proof beyond the pleadings, even if objected to, may be admitted and considered when permission to amend the pleadings is requested and granted.” La.C.C.P. Art. 1154. (emphasis supplied). Ussery v. Ussery, 583 So.2d 838, 841 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991) (citing Guillory v. Buller, 398 So.2d 43 (La.App. 3 Cir.1981)). However, notwithstanding this authority, “nothing in the article [art. 862] is intended to confer jurisdiction on a court to decide a controversy which the parties have not regularly brought before it.” Id. Otherwise, “[a] judgment beyond the pleadings is a nullity.” Id. at 841, citing Romero v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 479 So.2d 694 (La.App. 3 Cir.1985).
Domingue, 996 So.2d at 657.
In the instant case, Stockman filed the initial complaint, seeking
authorization for a nerve block. She was allowed to file a supplemental and 2 amended petition that added penalties and attorney fees to the original relief
sought. MTI did not file a reconventional demand. Thus, the only issues before
the WCJ were the authorization of the nerve block, penalties and attorney fees.
For the reasons set forth in Domingue, we reverse the judgment insofar as it
addresses issues other than the authorization, penalties, and attorney fees.
In her second assignment of error, Stockman alleges that the WCJ erred in
denying her claim for penalties and attorney fees. “The applicable standard of
review in determining whether a defendant should be cast with penalties and
attorney fees is the manifest error—clearly wrong standard.” Rutledge v. Resource
Transp., 08-1149, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/4/09), 7 So.3d 794, 795 (quoting Bennett
v. Pilgrim’s Pride, 07-753, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/07), 972 So.2d 423, 429,
writ denied, 08-103 (La. 3/7/08), 977 So.2d 907). It is well settled in Louisiana
law that while workers’ compensation benefits should be given broad
interpretation, the punitive statutes should be interpreted strictly. Williams v. Rush
Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La. 6/29/99), 737 So.2d 41.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201governs the payment of benefits and any
attorney fees or penalties associated therewith. Subsection E states that “[m]edical
benefits payable under this Chapter shall be paid within sixty days after the
employer or insurer receives written notice thereof.” Subsection F of that statute
mandates that a penalty be assessed when payment is not provided in accordance
with the other subparts and allows for attorney fees to be assessed as well. An
employer can escape the mandatory penalties only when it reasonably controverts
the employee’s claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). This court has previously held that
“[a] claim is reasonably controverted when the employer or insurer produces
factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant’s evidence.”
Bourgeois v. Brown’s Deli & Market, Inc., 09-290, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/14/09), 3 21 So.3d 1072, 1077 (citing Davis v. Jones Baldwin Music Co., 27, 545 (La.App. 2
Cir. 11/1/95), 662 So.2d 803).
At trial, Stockman testified that her treating orthopedic physician, Dr. Drury,
ordered that a diagnostic nerve block be performed in order to treat pain in her left
arm that was caused by a pinched nerve in her cervical spine. Dr. Drury’s
notations state that he ordered the diagnostic nerve block because he believed the
chronic pain in her shoulders stemmed from her initial workplace accident. MTI
refused to approve the nerve block.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
11-285
DEVRA RENEE STOCKMAN
VERSUS
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 09-08568 JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE
PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, J. David Painter, James T. Genovese, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.
Amy, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND RENDERED.
Donald J. Anzelmo Snellings, Breard, Sartor, Inabnett & Trascher, L.L.P. 1503 North 19th Street Monroe, Louisiana 71201 (318) 387-8000 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Medical Technology, Inc.
Chris J. Roy, Sr. Chris J. Roy, Sr. Law Office, L.L.C. 1920 Jackson Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 (318) 767-1114 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Devra Renee Stockman KEATY, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant filed a disputed claim for
compensation, seeking authorization of a nerve block for diagnostic purposes,
attorney fees, and penalties. After a hearing on the matter, the workers’
compensation judge (WCJ) authorized the nerve block, but found the claimant’s
complaints were not related to the workplace accident and denied all requests for
penalties and attorney fees. The claimant appeals, complaining that the WCJ
decided issues not properly brought before him and that he erred in denying the
claimant’s request for penalties and attorney fees.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The claimant, Devra Stockman (Stockman) was injured in a workplace
accident on November 14, 2008. On October 9, 2009, Stockman filed a disputed
claim for compensation, seeking authorization for a nerve block that had been
recommended by her treating orthopedist, Dr. B. Todd Drury. Defendant, Medical
Technology, Inc. (MTI), answered Stockman’s petition on January 4, 2010. It did
not file a reconventional demand. On July 21, 2010, Stockman filed a
supplemental and amended petition seeking penalties and attorney fees in addition
to the nerve block authorization. At trial, counsel for MTI indicated that it did not
object to the supplemental petition.
A hearing on the issue took place on July 22, 2010. The WCJ took the
matter under advisement and requested post-trial briefs from each party. On
September 23, 2010, the WCJ issued his ruling orally. Those reasons were
reduced to writing and signed by the WCJ on November 10, 2010. In his judgment,
the WCJ found that Dr. Drury was Stockman’s orthopedic physician of choice, that
Stockman’s cervical complaints were not related to the workplace accident, that
Stockman was entitled to undergo the nerve block for diagnostic purposes, and that all other issues, including Stockman’s request for penalties and attorney fees were
denied.
Stockman filed a motion for new trial on November 19, 2010, which was set
for hearing. On December 22, 2010, the WCJ denied Stockman’s motion for new
trial. Stockman appealed. Two issues are now before us: whether the WCJ
decided issues beyond those that had been properly pled and whether the WCJ
erred in denying Stockman’s claim for penalties and attorney fees.
For the following reasons we find that the WCJ decided issues that were not
before him and was manifestly erroneous in declining to assess penalties. We
award Stockman penalties in the amount of $2,000.00. We reverse the remainder
of the judgment except for the portion granting the nerve block and addressing
attorney fees; these issues are affirmed.
DISCUSSION
The proposition that a judgment beyond the pleadings creates a nullity is a
well-established legal principle in Louisiana law. An explanation of what
constitutes “beyond the pleadings” was set forth by this court in Domingue v.
Bodin, 08-62 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/08), 996 So.2d 654. In Domingue, we stated:
“[U]nder proper circumstances proof beyond the pleadings, even if objected to, may be admitted and considered when permission to amend the pleadings is requested and granted.” La.C.C.P. Art. 1154. (emphasis supplied). Ussery v. Ussery, 583 So.2d 838, 841 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991) (citing Guillory v. Buller, 398 So.2d 43 (La.App. 3 Cir.1981)). However, notwithstanding this authority, “nothing in the article [art. 862] is intended to confer jurisdiction on a court to decide a controversy which the parties have not regularly brought before it.” Id. Otherwise, “[a] judgment beyond the pleadings is a nullity.” Id. at 841, citing Romero v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 479 So.2d 694 (La.App. 3 Cir.1985).
Domingue, 996 So.2d at 657.
In the instant case, Stockman filed the initial complaint, seeking
authorization for a nerve block. She was allowed to file a supplemental and 2 amended petition that added penalties and attorney fees to the original relief
sought. MTI did not file a reconventional demand. Thus, the only issues before
the WCJ were the authorization of the nerve block, penalties and attorney fees.
For the reasons set forth in Domingue, we reverse the judgment insofar as it
addresses issues other than the authorization, penalties, and attorney fees.
In her second assignment of error, Stockman alleges that the WCJ erred in
denying her claim for penalties and attorney fees. “The applicable standard of
review in determining whether a defendant should be cast with penalties and
attorney fees is the manifest error—clearly wrong standard.” Rutledge v. Resource
Transp., 08-1149, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/4/09), 7 So.3d 794, 795 (quoting Bennett
v. Pilgrim’s Pride, 07-753, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/07), 972 So.2d 423, 429,
writ denied, 08-103 (La. 3/7/08), 977 So.2d 907). It is well settled in Louisiana
law that while workers’ compensation benefits should be given broad
interpretation, the punitive statutes should be interpreted strictly. Williams v. Rush
Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La. 6/29/99), 737 So.2d 41.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201governs the payment of benefits and any
attorney fees or penalties associated therewith. Subsection E states that “[m]edical
benefits payable under this Chapter shall be paid within sixty days after the
employer or insurer receives written notice thereof.” Subsection F of that statute
mandates that a penalty be assessed when payment is not provided in accordance
with the other subparts and allows for attorney fees to be assessed as well. An
employer can escape the mandatory penalties only when it reasonably controverts
the employee’s claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). This court has previously held that
“[a] claim is reasonably controverted when the employer or insurer produces
factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant’s evidence.”
Bourgeois v. Brown’s Deli & Market, Inc., 09-290, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/14/09), 3 21 So.3d 1072, 1077 (citing Davis v. Jones Baldwin Music Co., 27, 545 (La.App. 2
Cir. 11/1/95), 662 So.2d 803).
At trial, Stockman testified that her treating orthopedic physician, Dr. Drury,
ordered that a diagnostic nerve block be performed in order to treat pain in her left
arm that was caused by a pinched nerve in her cervical spine. Dr. Drury’s
notations state that he ordered the diagnostic nerve block because he believed the
chronic pain in her shoulders stemmed from her initial workplace accident. MTI
refused to approve the nerve block.
MTI did not offer testimony or evidence for denying the nerve block, other
than Stockman’s medical records, the records of a doctor who evaluated Stockman
briefly, and the opinion of a physician who did not examine Stockman at all.
After reviewing the medical records, the WCJ determined that Stockman had not
“established by a preponderance of the evidence that any cervical problem she may
have is causal related to the—to the incident that occurred on November 14 of
2008.” The WCJ then granted the nerve block “so that a proper diagnosis can be
made as to what may be the pain generator for the continuing complaints
Ms. Stockman has with regard to her shoulder.” The WCJ then declined to assess
penalties and attorney fees because “there’s a question in Ms. Stockman’s case as
to what the pain generator is.”
In his reasoning, the WCJ declined to assess attorney fees or penalties,
because I don’t find enough information contained in Dr. Drury’s records, and I know that treating physicians opinions can have great weight, but there’s nothing, there’s nothing in the bare bones records of Dr. Drury to support his conclusion on the—in those records of October 26th, 2009. I do feel that this is direct related to the additional on-the-job-injury. There is no facts that he states that gives him that basis to make that conclusion. As previously stated, although the decision to award attorney fees is
discretionary, penalties are mandated by statute when the employer fails to approve
4 or pay a medical benefit, unless it can show that it reasonably controverted the
employee’s claim.
The WCJ’s rationale in declining to assess penalties is manifestly erroneous.
Instead of determining whether or not MTI reasonably controverted Stockman’s
claim for a nerve block, as required by Louisiana law, the WCJ instead focused on
what Stockman had or had not proved. In doing so, the WCJ declined to award
penalties. The failure to apply the “reasonably controverted” test was manifestly
erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment on penalties and
order MTI to pay penalties in the amount of $2,000.00 to Stockman in accordance
with La.R.S. 23:1201(E) and (F)(2).
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm that portion of the judgment that grants
the nerve block and denies attorney fees. We reverse the portion of the judgment
concerning penalties and render judgment against Medical Technology, Inc., in the
amount of $2,000.00 for statutorily mandated penalties. All other portions of the
judgment are reversed. Costs are assessed against Medical Technology, Inc.
5 NUMBER 11-285
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
AMY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s reversal of those aspects of the underlying
judgment that were not properly before the workers’ compensation judge.
However, I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the denial of penalties.
Although the workers’ compensation judge did not discuss the denial of penalties
and attorney fees in language squarely reflective of La.R.S. 23:1201(F), the
reasons expressed reveal the determination that the matter was reasonably
controverted. I find no manifest error in that determination nor in the ultimate
denial of penalties and attorney fees. Accordingly, I would affirm the workers’
compensation judge’s ruling in that aspect.