Eleazar Rivera Salgado Versus Tri-Parish Roofing & Home Improvements
296 So.3d 1201
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- On August 23, 2017, Eleazar Salgado fell from a ladder at a construction site and later (Aug. 26) was diagnosed with a distal tibial fracture at University Medical Center.
- Salgado filed a disputed claim for workers’ compensation (Oct. 5, 2017), alleging he was employed by Tri-Parish Roofing & Home Improvements and was left without medical care or pay after the injury.
- Tri-Parish denied employment and injury, asserting Salgado was employed by a subcontractor (Saguesteumi) and claiming no prior knowledge of Salgado or the accident.
- At trial (Mar. 18, 2019) the judge credited Salgado’s testimony and medical records, rejected Tri-Parish’s subcontractor explanation (no documentary proof), and found Salgado an employee injured in the course and scope of employment.
- The judge awarded temporary total disability and medical benefits, and assessed $8,000 in penalties/attorney’s fees for Tri-Parish’s arbitrary and capricious refusal to pay or authorize care.
- Tri-Parish appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s factual findings and penalty award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Salgado) | Defendant's Argument (Tri-Parish) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of employer-employee relationship | Salgado was paid in cash, wore Tri-Parish shirts, transported in Tri-Parish vehicle, and worked under Tri-Parish control | Salgado was an employee of subcontractor Saguesteumi; apply Alexander independent-contractor factors; claim no employer knowledge | Court applied La. R.S. 23:1044 presumption of employment, found Tri-Parish failed to rebut it and affirmed employee finding |
| Proof of accident, injury, and disability | Testimony + medical records tying ankle fracture to ladder fall; doctor restricted work | Tri-Parish primarily contested employment status, not occurrence; disputed facts | Court found Salgado met burden by preponderance; testimony corroborated by medical records; affirmed injury and disability findings |
| Penalties and attorney's fees for failure to pay/authorize care | Employer ignored obligation, failed to investigate or pay, and refused care after injury | Denial not reasonably controverted; employer offered no valid basis for withholding benefits | Court affirmed award: employer acted arbitrarily and capriciously; penalties appropriate under La. R.S. 23:1201 |
| Alleged indeterminate judgment period for TTD | N/A (Salgado had returned to work before trial) | Judgment ambiguous on TTD end date (release by orthopedist or voluntary return to work) | Court held judgment determinate in light of Salgado’s testimony about return to work; no merit to argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. J. E. Hixson & Sons Funeral Home, 44 So.2d 487 (La. App. 1950) (four-factor test for independent-contractor vs. employee status)
- Hillman v. Comm-Care, Inc., 805 So.2d 1157 (La. 2002) (statutory presumption of employee status under workers’ comp and how it may be rebutted)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest-error standard; appellate review of factual findings and credibility)
- Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La. 1992) (worker’s testimony may suffice if corroborated by circumstances and medical evidence)
- Villatoro v. Deep S. BH & R Enterprises, LLC, 206 So.3d 428 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2016) (application of manifest-error review in workers’ compensation appeals)
- Stretzinger v. Claims Mgmt., Inc., 285 So.3d 591 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2019) (penalties/fees framework under La. R.S. 23:1201 and multiple penalties rationale)