Miller v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital
100 So. 3d 404
| La. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ms. Miller, employed as a certified nurse assistant by CSPH, sustained a work injury June 29, 2010; CSPH provided medical care but paid no indemnity benefits.
- Ms. Miller filed a disputed claim on March 29, 2011; WCJ awarded indemnity benefits on December 5, 2011.
- Ms. Miller was terminated by CSPH on October 14, 2010, after light-duty work and ongoing treatment; she subsequently sought treatment from her chosen physician, Dr. Lechtenberg.
- WCJ found Miller entitled to indemnity benefits and rejected CSPH’s argument that termination for cause ended entitlement; WCJ denied Miller’s request to select a different physical therapy facility.
- Judgment awarded Miller TTD/SEB at zero earnings from October 14, 2010, a $2,000 penalty, and $10,000 in attorney fees; on appeal CSPH challenges the termination-for-cause issue and Miller challenges PT-venue and seeks additional fees; the appellate court affirmed and awarded an additional $5,000 in fees for the appeal.
- The Louisiana appellate court reviewed under manifest error standard, upheld the WCJ’s factual findings and legal conclusions, and held that Miller’s termination did not preclude indemnity benefits and that the WCJ correctly denied Miller’s request to choose a physical therapist; 23:1121(B)(1) governs right to a treating physician, not to a PT practitioner; the court awarded fees on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller is entitled to indemnity benefits despite CSPH’s claimed cause-related termination. | Miller argues termination for cause does not bar SEB per Palmer v. Schooner. | CSPH argues termination for cause ended entitlement under Palmer line of cases. | Yes; Miller entitled to indemnity benefits; termination for cause not shown to bar SEB. |
| Whether Miller’s termination was for cause and thus affected eligibility for SEB. | Miller disputes termination for cause and its effect on SEB. | CSPH contends termination for cause ends SEB eligibility. | WCJ correct; issue for district court, not WCJ; nevertheless termination here not clearly for cause; SEB awarded. |
| Whether CSPH reasonably controverted Miller’s claim for penalties and attorney fees. | Miller asserts CSPH failed to reasonably controvert wage-loss evidence. | CSPH contends timely contest and evidence supported no penalties/fees. | No manifest error; penalty and attorney fees awarded to Miller. |
| Whether Miller could choose her own physical therapist. | Miller argues right to choose treating physician extends to PT provider. | Gautreaux controls; employee may not choose a PT; CSPH’s Total Physical Therapy acceptable. | No error; employee’s right to select a treating physician does not cover PT choice; denial affirmed. |
| Whether Miller is entitled to additional attorney fees for appellate work. | Miller seeks appellate-fee enhancement. | No additional appellate fees unless justified. | Award of $5,000 in appellate attorney fees affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. Schooner Petroleum Services, 834 So.2d 642 (La.App.3 Cir. 2002) (termination does not end SEB when not caused by injury; if job available, termination affects benefits)
- Palmer v. Alliance Compressors, 917 So.2d 510 (La.App.3 Cir. 2005) (where termination for cause is unrelated to injury, SEB may terminate)
- Grillette v. Alliance Compressors, 923 So.2d 774 (La.App.3 Cir. 2006) (reiterates Palmer on termination and SEB, with focus on lack of basis to avoid benefits)
- Gautreaux v. K.A.S. Construction, LLC, 923 So.2d 850 (La.App.3 Cir. 2006) (limits employee right to PT choice under 23:1121(B)(1) to treating physician, not PTs)
- Lynch v. A Door Works, Inc., 72 So.3d 1033 (La.App.3 Cir. 2011) (standard of review for WCJ findings: manifest error)
- Rutledge v. Resource Transp., 7 So.3d 794 (La.App.3 Cir. 2009) (penalties/fees standard under 23:1201; strict interpretation of punitive provisions)
- Nash v. Aecom Tech. Corp., 976 So.2d 263 (La.App.3 Cir. 2008) (appellate fees if defending unsuccessful appeal)
- Bethel v. Lake City Trucking, 87 So.3d 338 (La.App.3 Cir. 2012) (upholds appellate-fee enhancement)