Theodile v. RPM Pizza, Inc.

865 So. 2d 980, 3 La.App. 3 Cir. 987, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 126, 2004 WL 205814
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 4, 2004
Docket03-987
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 865 So. 2d 980 (Theodile v. RPM Pizza, 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
Theodile v. RPM Pizza, Inc., 865 So. 2d 980, 3 La.App. 3 Cir. 987, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 126, 2004 WL 205814 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

865 So.2d 980 (2004)

Lawanda THEODILE
v.
RPM PIZZA, INC.

No. 03-987.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

February 4, 2004.

*981 Christopher A. Edwards, Edwards Law Firm, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Lawanda Theodile.

William H. Parker, III, Allen & Gooch, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, RPM Pizza, Inc.

Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, MARC T. AMY, and MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN, Judges.

AMY, Judge.

The claimant filed a workers' compensation claim, seeking penalties and attorney's fees related to the untimely payment of medical expenses she contends resulted from an automobile accident occurring during the course and scope of her employment. After a tentative settlement was reached for the $10,000 limits of the other driver's insurance policy, the claimant's attorney filed a Motion to Disburse Funds, asserting that the attorney's privilege included medical expenses paid or guaranteed on the claimant's behalf. The workers' compensation provider asserted that the medical expenses did not constitute a fee as determined in the attorney's privilege statutes. The workers' compensation judge concluded that the medical expenses did not constitute a fee, thereby finding the workers' compensation lien superior to those for the medical expenses. For the following reasons, we reverse the ruling and remand for further proceedings.

Factual and Procedural Background

The claimant alleges that she was injured in an automobile accident occurring during the course and scope of her employment with the defendant, RPM Pizza, Incorporated. The claimant made both a personal injury claim against the other driver involved in the accident and the driver's insurance provider. The claimant hired the Edwards Law Firm to represent her in the personal injury claim. A contingency contract for one-third of the recovery or settlement was entered into. The contract, entitled "Retainer Agreement," authorized the attorney to:

[I]ncur and pay on CLIENT's behalf for expenses such as but not limited to investigation and prosecution of claim, witness and expert fees, travel expenses, paralegal expenses, office expenses, mileage reimbursement, medical expenses, court reporters' fees, copying charges, bonds, telephone expenses, postage, clerks' and sheriffs' fees, and in connection therewith, said ATTORNEY is authorized to make direct disbursement thereof from any settlement or recovery to pay such expenses and/or reimburse ATTORNEY for such expenses he has previously advanced, said disbursement to be in addition to the fee called for above.

During the course of the representation, the Edwards Firm expended or guaranteed approximately $7,880.61 in medical and associated costs.

The Disputed Claim for Compensation was filed instituting the workers' compensation portion of the claim on March 26, 2003. The claimant alleged that the automobile accident occurred while she was driving to a work-related meeting and that *982 "some medical treatment" recommended by her physician was not paid by the employer within sixty days.[1] She sought penalties and attorney's fees associated with the alleged failure to pay. She noted that: "Concursus proceeding necessary to disburse third party settlement funds to claimant's attorney to pay attorney fees, attorney costs, and medicals paid by claimant and to set amount owed by employer/insurer to claimant in medicals in excess of settlement amount."

Relevant to the matter now before the court, the claimant also filed a Motion to Disburse Settlement Funds and For Approval of Settlement. The motion noted that a tentative settlement on the underlying tort claim had been reached for the $10,000.00 policy limits of the other driver's automobile insurance policy. However, the motion alleged, due to the one-third contingency contract and the $7,880.61 in expenses incurred, the claimant would be left after settlement, still owing in excess of one thousand dollars in medical expenses. However, the motion continues, the workers' compensation insurer "has alleged that it is entitled to reimbursement out of the proceeds of the third party claim, and that it should be paid out of the settlement proceeds for any amounts they have already paid." Due to this, the claimant alleged, the insurer had failed to authorize the settlement. The claimant asked the Office of Workers' Compensation to order the insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, to approve the settlement and to continue workers's compensation benefits following the third-party settlement.

When the matter was heard by the workers' compensation judge, the issue remaining was whether the medical expenses forwarded/guaranteed by the claimant's attorney were to be considered a part of the attorney's fee and, therefore, a superior privilege to the statutory lien available to the workers' compensation insurer for those sums it had provided. Observing that the one-third contingency fee, or "clear fee" as it was termed by the workers' compensation judge, would have first priority from the $10,000.00, the workers' compensation judge found that the medical expenses and associated costs "do not prime the workers' comp lien[.]" The judgment subsequently signed stated:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that out of $10,000.00 available from the insurer, U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. in the automobile accident third party claim of September 3, 2002, that LAWANDA THEODILE'S attorney, Christopher A. Edwards and Edwards Law Firm have a first privilege and lien on attorney fees which represent only the one-third contingency fee and no costs, expenses or medical paid by or guaranteed on behalf of Christopher A. Edwards and Edwards Law Firm or LAWANDA THEODILE in the prosecution of her automobile accident third party claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is entitled to reimbursement of all amounts that they have paid for workmen's compensation weekly benefits or medical in preference to any attorney expenses, attorney costs, or attorney advances for medicals on behalf of LAWANDA THEODILE for injuries received from the accident of September 3, 2002.

*983 The claimant's attorney appeals, assigning the following as error:

1) The Administrative Law Judge was manifestly erroneous in her assessment of the priority of liens in ordering a workmen's compensation insurance carrier to be reimbursed before payment of medicals and attorney fee costs, expenses and guaranteed medicals.

Discussion

The priority of the attorney's lien for the contingency fee is not in question. The sole question before the court is whether those medical and related expenses are a part of the attorney's fee subject to the attorney's lien. Claimant's counsel asserts that La.R.S. 37:218 and La.R.S. 9:5001, which govern the attorney's lien, should be viewed as including medical expenses.

The Workers' Compensation Lien

The competing privilege, that advanced by the workers' compensation insurer, is contained in La.R.S. 23:1103, which provides in part:

A. (1) In the event that the employer or the employee or his dependent becomes party plaintiff in a suit against a third person, as provided in R.S.

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

Related

Glenn M. Hebert v. J. Elise Shelton
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009
LeBlanc v. ABC Insurance Co.
934 So. 2d 219 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006)
Shirley Leblanc v. Abc Ins. Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
865 So. 2d 980, 3 La.App. 3 Cir. 987, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 126, 2004 WL 205814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theodile-v-rpm-pizza-inc-lactapp-2004.