Dombrowski v. PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING COMPANY, LLC
2011 La. App. LEXIS 441
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dombrowski, with a long history of back problems and multiple surgeries, was employed by Patterson starting April 2008 and promoted to driller after initial positions as floor hand and motorman.
- He disclosed his back history during hiring and continued to work in heavy-duty roles.
- On May 28, 2009, he alleges a work-related accident lifting a heavy object caused a back injury with right leg symptoms; an ER visit on May 25 preceded the accident claim.
- Post-accident treatment began with Work Kare and Dr. Forte; he returned to light-duty work but was eventually terminated on June 16, 2009 for being off work due to a prior injury.
- Dombrowski filed a disputed claim for workers’ compensation, seeking benefits, penalties, and attorney fees; the WCJ awarded benefits, penalties, and attorney fees; Patterson appealed challenging fraud findings and the causation/consequences, while Dombrowski answered seeking additional fees.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the general award but increased the attorney fees by $3,000 for defending the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dombrowski forfeited benefits under La. R.S. 23:1208 for fraud. | Dombrowski did not knowingly misrepresent; ER visit omission was reasonable. | Dombrowski deliberately concealed prior back issues to obtain benefits. | No manifest error; no false statement to support forfeiture. |
| Whether the accident occurred and causally related medical complaints to the accident. | Dombrowski’s testimony and post-accident medical evidence sustain compensability. | Evidence undermines direct link between preexisting condition and current symptoms. | WCJ’s finding of a compensable accident and causal relation supported. |
| Whether penalties and attorney fees were appropriate given the denial of benefits. | Penalty/fees justified due to unreasonable denial of a long-standing, related claim. | Denial was reasonably controverted based on evidence and doctor deposition. | WCJ’s penalties and fees upheld; appellate increase to attorney fees affirmed. |
| Whether the award of attorney fees should be increased on appeal. | Dombrowski seeks additional fees for appellate work. | Fees should be limited to trial-related work. | Attorney fees increased by $3,000, total $13,000. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 696 So. 2d 551 (La. 1997) (manifest error standard for reviewing WCJ findings)
- Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So. 2d 880 (La. 1993) (two-part test for manifest error; reasonableness of fact finding)
- Baker v. Stanley Evans Logging, 960 So. 2d 351 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2007) (strict forfeiture standards; require clear evidence of willful misrepresentation)
- Slater v. Mid-South Extrusion, 989 So. 2d 252 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (forfeiture depends on willful false statements tied to claim)
- Risk Management Services v. Ashley, 873 So. 2d 942 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2004) (strict construction of statutory forfeiture under 23:1208)
- Brooks v. Madison Parish Service District Hospital, 954 So. 2d 207 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2007) (reaffirmation of standard for reviewing credibility and forfeiture claims)