Roy v. Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc.
This text of 525 So. 2d 630 (Roy v. Ruth's Chris Steak House, 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.
Opinions
Plaintiff-appellant, Anna Belle Roy, brought this worker’s compensation suit against her former employer, Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc., defendant-appellee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on the grounds that the claim had prescribed. From this ruling plaintiff appeals. We reverse.
FACTS
Ms. Roy was employed by defendant on February 28, 1984, when she allegedly injured her wrist while she was washing dishes. Plaintiff received worker’s compensation benefits for that injury until March 13, 1985. Defendant did not, however, report the injury to the Office of Worker’s Compensation (Office) as required by LSA-R.S. 23:1306.1 Therefore, plaintiff did not receive information from the Office of her rights, benefits, and obligations under the Worker’s Compensation Act as mandated under LSA-R.S. 23:1307.2
Plaintiff waited until March 13, 1986, to file suit in district court for worker’s compensation benefits and medical expenses. Plaintiff did not attach a copy of the LSA-R.S. 23:1310.1 certificate of rejection to her petition as required under LSA-R.S. [632]*63223:1311. This suit was dismissed on defendant’s exception as premature.
Thereafter, plaintiff applied to the Office on its approved claim forms for a recommendation. After one was made, plaintiff rejected it. The Office issued a certificate of rejection to plaintiff who refiled suit for benefits on August 26, 1986. Defendant moved for a summary judgment alleging that plaintiff's claim prescribed under LSA-R.S. 23:12093 in that plaintiff failed to properly file suit within one year of the last compensation payment (March 13, 1985). The trial court granted the summary judgment on February 25, 1987. Plaintiff appeals this judgment.
Plaintiff intimates in her brief that she was unable to timely file her claim in the Office because defendant failed to notify the Office of the accident. In turn, the Office did not send plaintiff a brochure summarizing the respective responsibilities of plaintiff and defendant. The record is devoid of any information regarding what plaintiff did after benefits were terminated until suit was filed. Plaintiff asserts that without the brochure, she remained uninformed and could not act any sooner. Thus a genuine issue of material fact remains. While plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the prescriptive period has not run, Bohr v. Wood, 507 So.2d 4, 5 (La.App. 2d Cir.1987), it is the movant’s burden under La.C.C.P. art. 966 to show convincingly that there exists no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ledbetter v. Myers, 438 So.2d 700 (La.App.2d Cir.1983). All doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment are to be resolved against the mover; and evidence is to be liberally construed in favor of the party opposing the motion. Turberville v. Georgia Pacific Chemical Company, 385 So.2d 366 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980).
In this instance, we are concerned that defendant’s failure to report plaintiff’s accident, as mandated under LSA-R.S. 23:1306, inured to defendant’s benefit and to the detriment of plaintiff’s cause. Plaintiff submits that she is uninitiated in the world of worker’s rights and that she has little experience and less education. Without the benefit of the brochure, which was not sent because of defendant’s failure to act as mandated by law, plaintiff was suspended in limbo. Under these circumstances, fairness dictates that the case be remanded to the district court for it to hear the evidence and make a decision on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment granted by the trial court is reversed. This case is remanded for further proceedings at defendant’s cost.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
525 So. 2d 630, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 1038, 1988 WL 45795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-v-ruths-chris-steak-house-inc-lactapp-1988.