City of DeQuincy v. Henry
2011 La. LEXIS 613
La.2011Background
- Henry, a DeQuincy police officer, was severely injured by contact with a live CLECO line in 2000, while the City covered workers' compensation benefits through RMI.
- Henry and CLECO settled the third-party tort claim for $4,350,000 with a written settlement document signed by Henry, his attorney, and CLECO's counsel on October 23, 2008; the City did not attend the mediation but had indicated it would waive one-third of its lien by email and verified the lien amount to the mediator.
- After settlement, the City sought to terminate Henry's workers' compensation benefits for lack of prior written approval, while Henry sought tacit approval and a credit framework for future benefits.
- The WCJ ruled that the City gave written approval, that the City had been paid the lien minus one-third attorney’s fees, and that the City was entitled to a credit against future benefits, limited to disability and not to future medical costs.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to determine (a) whether written approval was necessary, and (b) whether the City could credit future medical costs.
- The Supreme Court held that the written-approval question was moot and that the City is entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit against all future benefits, including future medical expenses, in the amount found by the WCJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the statute require formal written approval for the settlement? | Henry contends the City’s approval was lacking. | City argues it had written approval, or at least the buy-back provision preserved rights. | moot; decision on approval unnecessary to resolve the case |
| Does credit apply to future medical costs as part of the employer’s recovery? | Credit should not extend to future medical costs under Brooks/Breaux reasoning. | Amended §23:1102/1103 requires a dollar-for-dollar credit against full compromise including future medical costs. | Credit extends to future medical costs |
| Should Brooks v. Chicola and Breaux v. Dauterive Hospital Corp. govern this case under §23:1102 vs §23:1103? | Brooks/Breaux limit credit for future medical costs under the relevant provision. | Statutory amendments demonstrate intended credit for the entire settlement, including future medical costs. | Amendments show §23:1102 controls; Brooks/Breaux do not bind this case |
| Did the 1989 amendments to §23:1102 create a dollar-for-dollar credit against the full compromise amount, including future medical benefits? | Language did not clearly extend to future medical costs. | Amendments expressly require a dollar-for-dollar credit against the full amount, encompassing future medical costs. | Yes; amendments create dollar-for-dollar credit including future medical benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 808 So. 2d 294 (La. 2001) (statutory construction guiding legislative intent)
- Succession of Boyter, 756 So. 2d 1122 (La. 2000) (interpretation of workers' compensation statutes and intent)
- Sultana Corporation v. Jewelers Mutual Insurance Company, 860 So. 2d 1112 (La. 2003) (avoid surplusage; give effect to all statute parts)
- St. Martin Parish Police Jury v. Iberville Parish Police Jury, 33 So. 2d 671 (La. 1947) (statutory construction principles and legislative intent)
- Brooks v. Chicola, 514 So. 2d 7 (La. 1987) (credit issues under pre-amendment §23:1102/1103)
- Breaux v. Dauterive Hospital Corporation, 838 So. 2d 109 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2003) (insurer not entitled to credit for future medical benefits under certain interpretations)