Rusty Edward Parker v. Worley Field Services, Inc

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 5, 2026
Docket2026 CW 0266
StatusUnknown

This text of Rusty Edward Parker v. Worley Field Services, Inc (Rusty Edward Parker v. Worley Field Services, 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
Rusty Edward Parker v. Worley Field Services, Inc, (La. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

RUSTY EDWARD PARKER NO. 2026 CW 0266 VERSUS

WORLEY FIELD SERVICES, INC. MAY 05, 2026 In Re: Rusty Parker, applying for supervisory writs, Office

of Workers' Compensation, District 05, No. 25-03071.

BEFORE : McCLENDON, C.J., GREENE, STROMBERG, EDWARDS AND BALFOUR JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER . The Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”) judgment, which denied the Motion for Authorization of Initial Evaluation With Claimant’s Choice of Otolaryngologist filed by plaintiff, Rusty Parker, is reversed. Under the plain language of La. R.S. 23:1121(B)(1), “{t]lhe employee shall have the right to select one treating physician in any field or specialty”, “shall have the right to an expedited summary proceeding pursuant to R.S. 23:1201.1(K) (8), when denied his right to an initial physician of choice”, and “[t]he [OWC] shall order the employer or payor to authorize the Claimant’s choice of physician unless the employer or payor can show good cause for his refusal.” The statute places no burden on plaintiff to show that his initial choice of physician is “reasonable and necessary.” See Smith v. S. Holding, Ine., 2002- 107i (La. 1/28/03), 839 So.2d 5, 11. Accordingly, the OWC committed legal error by imposing this additional burden upon plaintiff. Furthermore, the evidence offered by defendant, Worley Field Services, Inc., was insufficient to show good cause for its refusal under the facts and circumstances of this case. Defendant did not present any evidence that the audiologist who performed plaintiff’s audiogram and prepared a report provided plaintiff with any treatment. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for authorization is granted. This matter is remanded to the OWC to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to penalties and attorney fees, and if so, the amount.

PMc TPS BDE KEB

Greene, J. dissents and would deny the writ.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

his AQ AISLE AO

? “ne

BUTY CLERK OF COURT | FOR THE COURT

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

Related

Smith v. Southern Holding, Inc.
839 So. 2d 5 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rusty Edward Parker v. Worley Field Services, Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rusty-edward-parker-v-worley-field-services-inc-lactapp-2026.