 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Adair6/21/2002
Judge William F. Kline, Jr., Retired, serving Pro Tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
PETTIGREW, J., concurs in the results and assigns reasons
Plaintiff appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing his tort suit after granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, John H. Brown, filed this professional malpractice suit against defendants Mary Lyles Adair and Kenneth Singletary (two vocational rehabilitation counselors), their employer, Mary Lyles Adair, Inc., and its insurer, Interstate Fire and Casualty Company. On November 5, 1997, plaintiff was involved in a work-related accident at his place of employment, La Riviera Restaurant in Metairie, Louisiana. After the accident, he received workers' compensation benefits from his employer's insurer, Louisiana Restaurant Association (LRA). While plaintiff was receiving benefits, LRA contracted with Adair and Singletary to provide vocational rehabilitation services to plaintiff. According to plaintiff, after a one-hour meeting between Singletary and plaintiff's former employer, defendants prepared a job analysis of plaintiff's previous position with La Riviera. Plaintiff alleges he was not consulted in connection with the preparation of the job analysis. The defendants forwarded the job analysis to plaintiff's treating physicians, who reviewed and approved the same. Without obtaining the approval of plaintiff's previous employer, defendants forwarded the job analysis to LRA. On that same day, an LRA adjuster sent a certified letter to plaintiff informing him that his treating physicians had released him to return to work. Plaintiff claims he was unable to return to work because of his medical condition, so his benefits were terminated.
Plaintiff filed this tort action against defendants claiming that their conduct amounted to "sham rehabilitation" rendered solely for the purpose of providing LRA with apparent grounds to terminate his workers' compensation benefits. He asserted that this sham rehabilitation directly resulted in the termination of benefits, which rendered him unable to support his family or to receive adequate medical care.
In response, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending that they did not breach any duty owed to plaintiff. They claimed that plaintiff has been fully compensated in the form of penalties and attorney's fees he recovered in his workers' compensation claim, and also that they enjoy immunity from plaintiff's tort suit.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. In oral reasons for judgment, the court held that the defendant vocational rehabilitation counselors enjoy tort immunity under the Workers' Compensation Act just as employers do. This appeal by plaintiff followed.
DISCUSSION
In a single assignment of error, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in holding that vocational rehabilitation counselors are entitled to enjoy tort immunity under the Workers' Compensation Act, thereby granting defendants' motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, summary judgments are reviewed de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Taylor v. Rowell, 98-2865, p. 3 (La. 5/18/99), 736 So.2d 812, 814. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966B.
In Louisiana, under the Workers' Compensation Act, an employer is liable for compensation benefits to
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|