Gilbert Mouton, Jr. v. Gulfstream Services

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: May 6, 2009
• Docket: WCA-0008-1186
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 08-1186

GILBERT MOUTON, JR.

VERSUS

GULFSTREAM SERVICES

**********

APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 4 PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 05-08351 SAM L. LOWERY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

BILLY HOWARD EZELL JUDGE

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Billy Howard Ezell, and James T. Genovese, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Michael Benny Miller Miller & Miller P. O. Box 1630 Crowley, LA 70527-1630 (337) 785-9500 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Gilbert Mouton, Jr. Travis Ron LeBleu Egan, Johnson and Stiltner P. O. Box 98001 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-8001 (225) 231-0539 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Gulfstream Services EZELL, JUDGE.

Gilbert Mouton, Jr. appeals a decision of a workers’ compensation judge

denying him penalties and attorney fees on a disputed workers’ compensation claim.

For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the workers’ compensation

judge.

Mr. Mouton worked for Gulfstream Services, Inc. pressure-testing oilfield

valves. On November 7, 2007, Mr. Mouton injured his back while attempting to

close a valve in order to test it. He filed a workers’ compensation claim on December

13, 2005, seeking medical and indemnity benefits. After a contentious trial, the

workers’ compensation judge found that Mr. Mouton had sustained a work-related

injury and awarded supplemental earnings benefits in the amount of $454.00 per

week. Mr. Mouton was also awarded medical benefits but was not given penalties

and attorney fees. From that decision, Mr. Mouton appeals. Gulfstream did appeal

the judgment, but that appeal was dismissed for failure to timely file a brief in this

matter.

On appeal, Mr. Mouton asserts three assignments of error: that the workers’

compensation judge erred in failing to award penalties and attorney fees, that the

workers’ compensation judge improperly allowed surveillance videos into evidence,

and that the workers’ compensation judge erred in not allowing the cross-examination

of Michael Mire on the third day of trial.

Awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are penal

in nature, being imposed to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by

employers and insurers. Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers, 97-110 (La. 7/1/97),

696 So.2d 1382. “To reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim so as to

avoid imposition of penalties and attorney fees, the employer and its insurer must

1 provide sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the evidence

provided by the claimant.” Johnson v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 38,495, pp. 16-17

(La.App. 2 Cir. 5/12/04), 873 So.2d 923, 933-34. “Penalties are stricti juris and

should be imposed only when the facts clearly negate good faith and just cause in

connection with the refusal to pay.” Young v. Christus Schumpert Med. Ctr., 39,593,

p. 10 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/11/05), 902 So.2d 1180, 1186-87. “In order for the claimant

to recover penalties and attorney fees, there must be a showing that the defendant did

not raise a seriously disputed issue.” Hickman v. Jim Smith Logging, 04-157, p. 10

(La.App. 3 Cir. 9/29/04), 883 So.2d 1072, 1078, writ denied, 04-2682 (La. 1/14/05)

889 So.2d 269. “[A] workers’ compensation judge has great discretion in deciding

whether to allow or disallow penalties and attorney fees, and the decision will not be

disturbed absent abuse of that discretion.” Frank v. City of Lake Charles, 04-820, p.

3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 887 So.2d 679, 681.

The workers’ compensation judge noted that Mr. Mouton was less than

forthcoming about his medical history, to be generous. He was inaccurate on multiple

occasions, hiding a series of automobile and work-related accidents, as well as back

injuries that occurred prior to the accident that serves the basis of this claim. He was

not forthcoming regarding his medical treatment concerning his back, including pain

management for back pain prior to the accident. The workers’ compensation judge

found that Mr. Mouton’s credibility was “legitimately suspect” and that Gulfstream

was not unreasonable in taking the matter to court because of this fact. There is

nothing in the record which shows this finding to be in error, let alone an abuse of

discretion.

His remaining assignments of error asserted by Mr. Mouton are moot in light

of our above findings. Moreover, Mr. Mouton does not set forth any way in which

2 they could alter the judgment of the workers’ compensation judge below, even if we

were to find them to be correct. Therefore, we need not address them.

For the above reasons, the decision of the workers’ compensation judge is

hereby affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Gilbert Mouton, Jr.