 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hood v. Will Transport12/7/2005
Before BROWN, CARAWAY and DREW, JJ.
At issue is whether the employer's reconventional demand stated a cause of action to recover worker's compensation benefits paid to an employee who tested positive for drugs at the time of the truck crash. La. R.S. 23:1081(1)(b). The worker's compensation judge (WCJ) overruled the claimant's exception of no cause of action after which the claimant filed an application for supervisory review. This court granted claimant's writ application and ordered this matter be docketed for a decision. For the following reasons, we find that the WCJ properly rejected claimant's exception of no cause of action. Thus, we recall the writ previously granted and remand this matter for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
While working for Will Transport, Darrell Hood was injured on November 2, 2002, when the 18-wheeler he was driving overturned on a curve on Highway 167 near Bernice. When hospitalized, he tested positive for cocaine and THC. The defendants paid worker's compensation benefits to Hood until October 30, 2003. On December 18, 2003, Hood filed a disputed claim for compensation against his employer and its insurer, the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Corporation (LWCC).
In a reconventional demand, Will Transport and the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Corporation (LWCC) alleged that the LWCC paid Hood $14,870 in medical benefits; $18,206.77 in indemnity benefits; and $1,042.95 in vocational rehabilitation benefits to which Hood was not entitled due to his intoxication at the time of the accident. The employer and its insurer averred that during discovery, they learned from Hood's medical records that claimant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged work injury; therefore, claimant was not entitled to benefits. Will Transport and the LWCC sought restitution from Hood along with attorney's fees and "all other good and equitable relief as the law allows." Hood responded with an exception of no cause of action against the defendants' request for repayment of worker's compensation benefits.
DISCUSSION
Defenses to a worker's compensation claim are found in La. R.S. 23:1081, which provides in pertinent part:
(1) No compensation shall be allowed for an injury caused:
(b) by the injured employee's intoxication at the time of the injury, unless the employee's intoxication resulted from activities which were in pursuit of the employer's interests or in which the employer procured the intoxicating beverage or substance and encouraged its use during the employee's work hours, or
In Short v. Short, 40,136 (La. App. 2d Cir. 9/23/05), 912 So. 2d 82, this court explained that the function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to determine whether the law extends a remedy against the defendant under the factual allegations of the petition. The issue is decided on the face of the petition. For the purpose of determining the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition and any annexed documents are accepted as true. In reviewing a trial court's ruling, the appellate court should conduct a de novo review because the exception raises a question of law, and the trial court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition.
According to Hood, the WCJ erred in overruling his exception because the law provides only two circumstances under which an employer may recover worker's compensation benefits which were not due to the employee. The first is La. R.S. 23:1206:
Any voluntary payment or unearned wages paid by the employer or insurer either in money or otherwise, to the employee or dependent, and accepted by the
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.
|
|