Jason Hart v. Highlines Construction Co., Inc.

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 11, 2013
DocketWCA-0013-0624
StatusUnknown

This text of Jason Hart v. Highlines Construction Co., Inc. (Jason Hart v. Highlines Construction Co., Inc.) 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
Jason Hart v. Highlines Construction Co., Inc., (La. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-624

JASON HART

VERSUS

HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS‟ COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 13-01320 JAMES L. BRADDOCK, WORKERS‟ COMPENSATION JUDGE

PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Eric J. Waltner Allen & Gooch Post Office Box 81129 Lafayette, Louisiana 70598-1129 (337) 291-1400 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: The Gray Insurance Company Highlines Construction Company, Inc. Robert L. Beck, III Law Offices of Robert L. Beck, Jr., LLC Post Office Drawer 12850 Alexandria, Louisiana 71315-2850 (318) 445-6581 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Jason Hart KEATY, Judge.

The issue in this workers‟ compensation case is whether La.R.S. 23:1201.4

precludes an incarcerated claimant from filing a claim to establish his right to

collect workers‟ compensation benefits upon his release from incarceration.

Because we answer that question in the negative, we reverse the judgment of the

workers‟ compensation judge (WCJ) sustaining exceptions filed by the claimant‟s

employer and its insurer.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts in this matter are not in dispute. The claimant, Jason Hart, was

injured on November 12, 2007, when he came in contact with a live electrical line

while working for HOTI, Inc.1 Thereafter, The Gray Insurance Company, HOTI‟s

workers‟ compensation insurer, began paying Hart weekly indemnity benefits. On

February 22, 2010, Hart was incarcerated following a parole violation. Several

months later, Gray ceased paying Hart indemnity benefits pursuant to La.R.S.

23:1201.4.

Hart filed a Form 1008 Disputed Claim for Compensation (1008) against

HOTI and Gray (hereafter appellees) on February 25, 2013, wherein he listed as

the bona fide dispute that his “[e]ntitlement to receive medical benefits has not

been established.” In response, the appellees filed an exception of prematurity and

no cause of action and/or right of action. Before the exceptions came up for

hearing, Hart filed a first supplemental and amending 1008 and a second

supplemental and amending 1008 in which he claimed that the appellees had failed

to authorize his evaluation by Dr. Gerald Leglue, Jr. and to approve additional

1 HOTI, Inc. was previously known as Highlines Construction Company, Inc. Whenever we use the term HOTI in this opinion, we are referring to either Highlines or HOTI, Inc. vocational rehabilitation. Hart sought penalties and attorney fees in both

supplemental 1008s. While the appellees did not object to Hart‟s filing of the two

supplemental petitions, they did assert their exceptions as to the petitions.

Following a contradictory hearing, the WCJ sustained the exceptions and

dismissed the matter with prejudice. Hart now appeals asserting that the WCJ

erred in holding that he was precluded from filing and/or pursuing a claim for

workers‟ compensation medical benefits during his incarceration.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201.4, entitled “Forfeiture of benefits while

incarcerated; exclusions; medical expenses,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

A. . . . [T]he employee‟s right to compensation benefits, including medical expenses, is forfeited during any period of incarceration, unless a workers‟ compensation judge finds that an employee has dependents who rely on a compensation award for their support, in which case said compensation shall be made payable and transmitted to the legal guardian of the minor dependent or other person designated by the workers‟ compensation judge and such payments shall be considered as having been made to the employee. After release from incarceration, the employee‟s right to claim compensation benefits shall resume. An employee who is incarcerated but is later found to be not guilty of felony criminal charges or against whom all felony charges have been dismissed by the prosecutor shall have the prescriptive period for filing a claim for benefits under this Chapter extended by the number of days he was incarcerated.

The WCJ relied on this court‟s decisions in Desselle v. Dresser Industrial

Valve, 96-374 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/5/97), 689 So.2d 549, writ denied, 97-618 (La.

4/25/97), 692 So.2d 1086, and Duplechain v. Department of Transportation and

Development, 02-356 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/2/02), 827 So.2d 567, writ denied, 02-

2674 (La. 1/31/03), 836 So.2d 68, as authority for granting the exceptions in favor

of the appellees. The WCJ reasoned that because La.R.S. 23:1201.4 provides that

an incarcerated claimant forfeits his medical benefits, Hart had no right of action

2 for medical benefits when he filed his claim against the appellees. Accordingly,

the WCJ declared that a claimant such as Hart “cannot just file a claim simply to

interrupt prescription when at the time of the filing you have no right to the

benefits you are seeking.”

In Desselle, 689 So.2d 549, the claimant was injured at work in 1989 and

began to receive workers‟ compensation benefits. He later returned to work for the

same employer where he earned more than 90% of the wages he was earning at the

time of his accident, and his employer stopped paying him benefits. Thereafter,

the claimant sought “a declaratory judgment declaring his entitlement to future

[supplemental earnings benefits (SEBs)] should he eventually become unable to

work due to his job injury.” Desselle, 689 So.2d at 551. As we noted, the claimant

appeared to concede that he was not presently entitled to workers‟ compensation

benefits but was “concerned with the prospect of his becoming disabled or laid off

beyond the two year prophylactic prescriptive period applicable to claims for

workers‟ compensation.” Id. We affirmed the hearing officer‟s judgment holding

that the claimant‟s action was premature and that he was not entitled to declaratory

judgment because we found that there was “no existing actual and substantial

dispute” or “justiciable controversy” between the claimant and his employer at that

time. Id. at 552.

In Duplechain, 827 So.2d 567, the claimant began receiving indemnity

benefits after he was injured at work in 1990. When he returned to work in 1993,

he stopped receiving indemnity benefits but his employer continued to provide him

with medical benefits. In 1994, the claimant filed a claim for compensation based

upon the 1990 accident but stated therein that no dispute existed at the time. That

claim was dismissed without prejudice on the basis that there were “no current

3 issues to be litigated.” Id. at 568. The claimant filed a second claim for benefits

against his employer in March of 2001, which the WCJ found was prescribed. On

appeal to this court, the claimant “present[ed] the equitable argument that there is

nothing a claimant can do to preserve his claim,” while reiterating that he had

“filed suit within one year of the last payment of indemnity benefits but it was

dismissed because no dispute existed at the time.” Id. This court nevertheless

affirmed the WCJ‟s finding that the claim was prescribed, noting that “[h]arsh

though the result may be, . . . [a] claimant cannot file suit merely to preserve a

potential claim when no dispute exists.” Id.

Hart seeks to distinguish his claim from those asserted by the claimants in

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

Related

Robinson v. North American Royalties, Inc.
463 So. 2d 1384 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1985)
Clark v. Mrs. Fields Cookies
707 So. 2d 17 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1998)
Desselle v. Dresser Indus. Valve
689 So. 2d 549 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Gobert v. S.W.D.I., L.L.C.
13 So. 3d 608 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
Jefferson Door Co. v. Cragmar Construction, L.L.C.
81 So. 3d 1001 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
Duplechain v. Dept. of Transportation & Development
827 So. 2d 567 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jason Hart v. Highlines Construction Co., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-hart-v-highlines-construction-co-inc-lactapp-2013.