Gross v. Corporate Personnel Service Temps

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Gross v. Corporate Personnel Service Temps

961 So. 2d 433, 2006 La.App. 1 Cir. 1253, 2007 La. App. LEXIS 875, 2007 WL 1299885

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 4, 2007

DocketNo. 2006 CA 1253

StatusPublished

This text of 961 So. 2d 433 (Gross v. Corporate Personnel Service Temps) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gross v. Corporate Personnel Service Temps, 961 So. 2d 433, 2006 La.App. 1 Cir. 1253, 2007 La. App. LEXIS 875, 2007 WL 1299885 (La. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWNING, J.

| pClaimant/Appellant, Aundra Gross, seeks review of a judgment rendered by the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) decreeing he violated the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1208 and as such forfeited his right to continued medical and indemnity benefits. We affirm the OWC judgment.

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1208 provides in pertinent part:

A. It shall be unlawful for any person, for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any benefit or payment under the provisions of this Chapter, either for himself or for any other person, to willfully make a false statement or representation.

⅜ ⅜ ⅜

(4) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary which defines “benefits claimed or payments obtained”, for purposes of Subsection C of this Section, the definition of “benefits claimed or payments obtained” shall include the cost or value of indemnity benefits, and the cost or value of health care, medical case management, vocational rehabilitation, transportation expense, and the reasonable costs of investigation and litigation.

[[Image here]]

E. Any employee violating this Section shall, upon determination by hearing officer, forfeit any right to compensation benefits under this Chapter.

We recognize that statutory forfeiture of workers’ compensation benefits is a harsh remedy and, as such, must be strictly construed. Leonard v. James Industrial Constructors, 03-0040, p. 9 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/14/04), 879 So.2d 724, 730. Here, Mr. Gross denied in deposition of ever having had treatment for prior back or neck problems. His medical records, however, contradict his denial. The hospital records from two different facilities show that he was treated in 1997 and again in 2002 for similar ailments.

After a thorough review of the record, exhibits and jurisprudence, we conclude that the OWC was not manifestly erroneous in finding that Gross willfully misrepresented his prior back injuries, thereby triggering the forfeiture statute.

|⅞As the issue involves no more than an application of well-settled rules to a recurring fact situation, we affirm the judgment by summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(2), (4), (8).

All costs of this appeal are assessed against Claimant/Appellant, Aundra Gross.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOWNING, J.

| pClaimant/Appellant, Aundra Gross, seeks review of a judgment rendered by the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) decreeing he violated the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1208 and as such forfeited his right to continued medical and indemnity benefits. We affirm the OWC judgment.

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1208 provides in pertinent part:

A. It shall be unlawful for any person, for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any benefit or payment under the provisions of this Chapter, either for himself or for any other person, to willfully make a false statement or representation.

⅜ ⅜ ⅜

(4) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary which defines “benefits claimed or payments obtained”, for purposes of Subsection C of this Section, the definition of “benefits claimed or payments obtained” shall include the cost or value of indemnity benefits, and the cost or value of health care, medical case management, vocational rehabilitation, transportation expense, and the reasonable costs of investigation and litigation.

[[Image here]]

E. Any employee violating this Section shall, upon determination by hearing officer, forfeit any right to compensation benefits under this Chapter.

We recognize that statutory forfeiture of workers’ compensation benefits is a harsh remedy and, as such, must be strictly construed. Leonard v. James Industrial Constructors, 03-0040, p. 9 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/14/04), 879 So.2d 724, 730. Here, Mr. Gross denied in deposition of ever having had treatment for prior back or neck problems. His medical records, however, contradict his denial. The hospital records from two different facilities show that he was treated in 1997 and again in 2002 for similar ailments.

After a thorough review of the record, exhibits and jurisprudence, we conclude that the OWC was not manifestly erroneous in finding that Gross willfully misrepresented his prior back injuries, thereby triggering the forfeiture statute.

|⅞As the issue involves no more than an application of well-settled rules to a recurring fact situation, we affirm the judgment by summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(2), (4), (8).

All costs of this appeal are assessed against Claimant/Appellant, Aundra Gross.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 So. 2d 433, 2006 La.App. 1 Cir. 1253, 2007 La. App. LEXIS 875, 2007 WL 1299885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-v-corporate-personnel-service-temps-lactapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack