Rebel Distributors Corp. v. Luba Workers' Comp., 144 So. 3d 825

Background

Rebel Distributors Corp. d/b/a Physician Partner and Pharmacy Partner provides pharmaceuticals to Dr. Heard's in-office clinic and assigns rights to Rebel under a 2007 Agreement, including rights to bill and receive payment for claims from insurers; Exhibit D sets payment terms and the 2007 Agreement allows assignment of claims; Dr. Heard dispenses medications to Doucet, with Rebel invoicing employers/insurers for payment.
Doucet, injured at Acadiana Plastics, received meds dispensed by Dr. Heard; LUBA notified Rebel to cease direct payment and to direct claimants to retail pharmacies.
Rebel filed a disputed workers’ compensation claim with the OWC for unpaid invoices; defendants argued Rebel lacked a right of action as it was not a health care provider or its agent under La. R.S. 23:1021(6).
In 2009 Rebel and Dr. Heard clarified agency relationships (2009 document stating Physician Partner is an agent of St. Thomas Clinic/Michel E. Heard) and in 2010 entered a Principal–Agent Agreement that explicitly novated the 2007 Agreement.
The Louisiana Office of Workers’ Compensation initially ruled for Rebel; on appeal, the court reversed, finding no right of action and invalidating the assignment; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted Rebel’s writ to resolve whether assignments by health care providers and novations can occur under the workers’ compensation framework.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether La. R.S. 23:1205(A) bars assignment of a health care provider’s claims.	Rebel argues the statute protects only injured employees’ rights, not providers’ assignments.	LUBA argues the anti-assignment provision applies to all claims under the act, including providers’ assignments.	Anti-assignment statute does not prohibit provider assignments; not limited to injured employees.
Whether Rebel, as an agent of the Clinic, fits the health care provider definition under La. R.S. 23:1021(6).	Agent status places Rebel within the health care provider definition.	Rebel must itself be a health care provider to qualify.	An agent acting in the course and scope of employment can be treated as a health care provider under the statute.
Whether the 2010 Agreement constitutes a retroactive novation of the 2007 Agreement.	Express novation in the 2010 Agreement retroactively extinguishes the 2007 obligations.	Novation requires clear intent and extinguishment; depends on whether valid under Article 1881.	The 2010 Agreement contains an express declaration of novation, retroactively extinguishing the 2007 Agreement.
Whether the appellate court correctly concluded the 2007 Agreement was an absolute nullity due to anti-assignment.	Assignment prohibition does not invalidate the underlying obligation; novation can cure.	Assignment prohibition invalidates the original obligation and precludes novation.	Assignment prohibition does not render the 2007 Agreement an absolute nullity; valid novation via 2010 Agreement permitted.
What remand is appropriate for remaining issues after reversal.			Remand to consider remaining issues consistent with the majority’s analysis.

Key Cases Cited

LeBleu v. Deshotel, 628 So.2d 1227 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1993) (anti-assignment provision protects injured employee’s benefits)
Schoemann v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 556 So.2d 77 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1989) (prohibition of assignment applied to employee’s workers’ comp. proceeds)
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co., Inc., 129 So.2d 234 (La. App. Orleans 1930) (anti-assignment provision referenced in employee context)
Dupre v. Consolidated Under-uniters, 99 So.2d 522 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1957) (strict pro-employee assignment prohibition under statute)
Isaacs v. Van Hoose, 131 So. 845 (La. 1930) (novation principles and express declaration importance)
Champagne v. American Alternative Insurance Corp., 112 So.3d 179 (La. 2013) (legislative intent and statutory construction principles)