Willamette Ind. v. State Worker's Comp.
This text of 595 So. 2d 1206 (Willamette Ind. v. State Worker's Comp.) 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.
Opinion
WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STATE of Louisiana WORKER'S COPENSATION SECOND INJURY BOARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Joe P. Williams, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.
Marcia Avery, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
*1207 Before FORET and LABORDE, JJ., and PATIN[*], J. Pro Tem.
LABORDE, Judge.
In this reimbursement suit, appellant, the State of Louisiana Worker's Compensation Second Injury Board, appeals a trial court ruling which held appellee, Willamette Industries, Inc., was entitled to reimbursement from appellant pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1378. We affirm.
FACTS
This is a suit for reimbursement of weekly indemnity benefits and medical expenses which plaintiff, Willamette Industries, Inc., has paid to its statutory employee, Ben Rodisch. Ben Rodisch worked for the Earl Clark Logging Company (Earl Clark) who worked as a contractor for plaintiff cutting and hauling timber which plaintiff purchased. Ben Rodisch's left elbow was permanently partially disabled when he began working for Earl Clark, and Earl Clark had knowledge of Rodisch's pre-existing permanent partial disability.
On or about October 6, 1983, Ben Rodisch sustained a crushing injury to his right ankle from a falling log. His condition was diagnosed as an open fracture, dislocation of right ankle, repair of deltoid ligament and anterior capsule, with arthritis of the right ankle. Arthrodesis (fusion of the right ankle) was performed in February of 1985.
Mentor Insurance Limited (Mentor) was Earl Clark's worker's compensation carrier. After Ben Rodisch's injury on October 6, 1983, Mr. Rodisch filed a claim for compensation with Mentor and began receiving benefits. In July of 1985, Mentor went into receivership, and shortly thereafter Rodisch's benefits were discontinued. Subsequent to Mentor's receivership, Earl Clark declared bankruptcy. Thereafter, Rodisch filed a suit for worker's compensation benefits against plaintiff, his statutory employer. Rodisch prevailed in this suit, and plaintiff began paying Rodisch's benefits. Plaintiff then filed a claim for reimbursement with the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Second Injury Board, which the board denied. This suit then followed. The trial court held in favor of the plaintiff finding plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement. Defendant now appeals this ruling.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
In this assignment of error, defendant alleges the trial court erred in finding Earl Clark's knowledge of Rodisch's pre-existing permanent partial disability should be imputed to the plaintiff in order to satisfy the knowledge requirement of La.R.S. 23:1378. La.R.S. 23:1378 reads in pertinent part as follows:
A. An employer operating under this Chapter who knowingly employs or knowingly retains in his employment an employee who has permanent partial disability, as defined in Subsection (F) hereof, shall be reimbursed from the Secondary Injury Fund as follows:
(1) Supplemental earnings benefits or permanent partial benefits. If an employee incurs a compensable disability which merges with a preexisting permanent partial disability, as defined in Subsection (F) hereof, supplemental earnings benefits or permanent partial benefits, pursuant to R.S. 23:1221(3) or (4), the employer shall pay all benefits provided in this Chapter, but such employer shall be reimbursed from the Second Injury Fund for sixty percent of all benefits which the employer has been required to provide pursuant to R.S. 23:1221(3) or (4).
(2) Permanent total disability. If an employee incurs a compensable disability which merges with a pre-existing permanent partial disability, as defined in Subsection (F) of this Section, to cause permanent total disability, the employer shall pay all benefits provided by this Chapter, but such employer shall be reimbursed from the Second Injury Fund for all compensation in excess of the first one hundred four weeks of disability compensation.
* * * * * *
*1208 (4) An employer entitled to reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund shall be reimbursed from said fund for fifty percent of the first ten thousand dollars paid for necessary medical, surgical, and hospital services and medicine for the same injury; thereafter, the employer shall be reimbursed from said fund for all sums paid pursuant to R.S. 23:1203 for necessary medical, surgical, and hospital services and medicine.
B. The employer or his insurer, whichever of them makes the payments or becomes liable, shall, within fifty-two weeks after the first payment of weekly compensation or death benefits, notify the board in writing of such facts and furnish such other information as may be required by the board to determine if the employer or his insurer is qualified for reimbursement from the worker's compensation second injury fund. Upon proper showing, the board may extend the filing period provided under the provisions of this Subsection.
Whether a principal employer's knowledge of an employee's pre-existing permanent partial disability should be imputed to the employee's statutory employer, in order for the statutory employer to be allowed to collect reimbursement from the Louisiana worker's compensation second injury fund, has not previously been addressed by any court in this state.[1] The trial court in this matter interpreted the pertinent statute to allow Earl Clark's knowledge to be imputed to the plaintiff, and it further found the knowledge requirement of the statute was met. In so holding, the trial court was guided by the primary purpose behind the second injury fund of encouraging employers to employ individuals with permanent partial disabilities. The plaintiffs allege the trial court's holding to impute the knowledge should be upheld. On the other hand, the defendants argue a literal and narrow construction of the statute should be applied which requires actual rather than imputed knowledge on the part of the statutory employer. We agree with the trial court's finding and hold Earl Clark's knowledge of Rodisch's pre-existing partial disability should be imputed to his statutory employer. This holding is supported by the very purpose of the statute which is to encourage a direct employer to hire persons with permanent partial disabilities. This purpose would be defeated if statutory employers, who may eventually have to make worker's compensation payments to an injured employee, are prevented from obtaining reimbursement by the Second Injury Fund because only the direct employer had actual knowledge of any such pre-existing injury. Should the board's interpretation of the statute be adopted, those in the position of statutory employers may encourage direct employers not to employ individuals with pre-existing partial disabilities. This would defeat the very purpose behind this statute.
Furthermore, the statute does not specifically require that both the direct employer and any statutory employer, who might be responsible for the payment of worker's compensation benefits, have actual knowledge in order to recover from the Second Injury Fund. The statute contemplates a person in a position to hire and fire should have knowledge of the permanent partial disability prior to the second injury in order to qualify the paying entity for reimbursement of worker's compensation benefits through the Second Injury Fund.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
595 So. 2d 1206, 1992 WL 45857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willamette-ind-v-state-workers-comp-lactapp-1992.