259 So. 3d 452
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Claimant (Mule) suffered a work-related injury on May 22, 2009 and later sought indemnity (wage) benefits under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act.
- The Office of Workers' Compensation (OWC) ruled Mule's indemnity claim prescribed and dismissed it with prejudice, finding the estoppel exception inapplicable.
- Mule appealed, arguing (1) prescription should be measured from the date he became disabled under La. R.S. 23:1031(E) (occupational disease theory), and (2) estoppel barred the employer from raising prescription because employer payments lulled him into delay.
- Mule did not raise the occupational-disease argument below (no mention at trial, in pre-trial statement, or post-trial memo).
- The OWC found, on the record and testimony, that Mule failed to prove he was induced to delay filing; payments after July 24, 2009 were for medical claims, not wages in lieu of compensation.
- The appellate court affirmed the OWC: the occupational-disease argument is precluded on appeal for not being raised below, and the OWC did not manifestly err in rejecting estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness: prescription should run from date of disability (occupational disease) | Mule: herniated disc is an occupational disease; claim timely within one year of disability | Employer: issue not raised below; prescription defense proper | Precluded on appeal—issue was not raised in OWC, so appellate court will not consider it |
| Estoppel: whether employer conduct suspended prescription | Mule: employer paid full wages during absences, inducing delay in filing | Employer: payments after 7/24/09 were for medical bills, not wages in lieu of compensation | Affirmed OWC: Mule failed to show he was lulled into delaying; estoppel does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean v. Southmark Constr., 879 So.2d 112 (La. 2004) (standard of review—manifest error for WC factual findings)
- Stobart v. State through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (two-part test for manifest error review)
- Dupaquier v. City of New Orleans, 257 So.2d 385 (La. 1972) (payments of sick leave can estop employer from raising prescription)
- Broussard v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 834 So.2d 1282 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (wages in lieu of compensation interrupt prescription)
- Rambin v. Shreveport Refrigeration, Inc., 902 So.2d 1129 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (elements for estoppel exception)
- Millican v. General Motors Corp., 771 So.2d 234 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (estoppel doctrine in WC context)
- Guillory v. City of New Orleans, 224 So.3d 1035 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (issues not raised below not considered on appeal)
- Scott v. Zaheri, 157 So.3d 779 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (same rule on appellate review)
- Safford v. Hammerman & Gainer Int'l, Inc., 198 So.3d 227 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (discussion of estoppel refinements in WC cases)