60 So. 3d 106
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Harold Lee, an inmate, participated in a work release program under Sheriff Hinton in Rapides Parish.
- On Sept. 10, 2006, while unloading lumber for Lumber Investors, Inc., he was injured by falling boards while using a forklift.
- Lee sued the DOC, Rapides Parish Police Jury, and Sheriff Hinton for damages.
- DOC moved for summary judgment arguing Lee was not its employee but Lumber Investors’ employee and exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the DOC, dismissing Lee’s claims with prejudice.
- Lee appeals asserting duty and no-cause-of-action issues under the WCA framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to provide a safe work environment | Lee claims DOC owed a duty to ensure a safe work environment during work release. | DOC argues no duty exists because Lee was not its employee and the WCA exclusivity applies. | Duty not owed as a matter of law; Rogers framework applies to work release inmates. |
| No cause of action defense assertion | Lee contends DOC cannot raise no-cause-of-action defense at summary judgment. | DOC relied on WCA exclusivity and related authorities to bar action. | No error in recognizing the exclusive remedy defense via summary judgment. |
| Application of Rogers v. DOC | Lee argues Rogers is distinguishable and should not control this case. | Rogers governs work release inmates’ status and exclusivity regardless of party posture. | Rogers principles apply; inmates in work release are not state employees and WCA exclusivity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, 982 So.2d 252 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (work release inmates not state employees; exclusive remedy under WCA)
- Broussard v. Smith, 999 So.2d 1171 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2008) (WCA exclusivity upheld via summary judgment)
- Bonds v. Byrd, 765 So.2d 1205 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2000) (summary judgment upheld on WCA exclusivity)
- Fox v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 413 So.2d 679 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1982) (WCA exclusivity principle recognized)
- Parish v. L.M. Daigle Oil Co., Inc., 742 So.2d 18 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1999) (duty questions may be resolved by summary judgment when no factual dispute exists)
- Washington v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 663 So.2d 47 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995) (duty may be determined on summary judgment if no factual disputes)
- Brewington v. La. Dept. of Corr., 447 So.2d 1184 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1984) (injuries on institutional property treated differently; distinguishable facts)