Sinegal v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office
139 So. 3d 630
| La. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Consent judgment (Nov. 29, 2010) required defendant to pay all reasonable and necessary medical treatment for injuries from two workplace accidents (2006, 2007).
- Sinegal filed a motion for penalties and attorney fees (Feb. 6, 2013) alleging defendant failed to approve a walk-in bathtub and an occupational therapy assessment for hand-rail installation.
- Defendant denied the requests as not medically necessary based on rehabilitation utilization reviews deeming the bathtub and OT assessment nonessential or unrelated to work injuries.
- WCJ denied the motion at a June 21, 2013 hearing, stating that the issues involved medical necessity and not proper subject matter for penalties, and suggested a Form 1008 be filed to properly join issues.
- On appeal, Sinegal argues (1) entitlement to penalties/fees for violation of the consent judgment, (2) improper use of summary proceedings/RS 23:1203.1, and (3) dismissal with prejudice; the court affirms.
- The appellate court ultimately holds that Sinegal failed to state a cause of action for penalties and attorney fees and notices an excption of no cause of action on its own motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sinegal stated a viable claim for penalties and attorney fees. | Sinegal contends defendant violated the consent judgment. | Defendant denies prematurity and argues denial was based on medical necessity. | No cause of action; penalty/fees denied. |
| Whether summary proceedings/RS 23:1203.1 supported the ruling on penalties. | Prematurity and improper use of summary proceedings. | Issues not properly joined; prematurity defense viable. | Moot government; not reached on the merits. |
| Whether the dismissal with prejudice was proper. | Requests for penalties/fees were dismissed improperly. | Ruling denied motion, not dismissed with prejudice. | Lacks merit; ruling affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 737 So.2d 41 (La. 1999) (penalties treated as penal, to be strictly construed; standard of review is manifest error)
- Ducote v. La. Indus., Inc., 980 So.2d 843 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2008) (appeals standard for penalties/fees in WC cases)
- Mallery v. Dynamic Indus., Inc., 86 So.3d 826 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2012) (uses manifest error/clearly wrong standard)
- Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 836 So.2d 14 (La. 2003) (definition of the term ‘claim’ in WC context; related to prematurity issue)
- Carr v. Masters, 469 So.2d 1147 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1985) (illustrates objection to prematurity vs. other failures in pleading)
- Bernberg v. Strauss, 999 So.2d 1184 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (recognizes grounds for noticing defects in pleadings)
- Bibbins v. City of New Orleans, 848 So.2d 686 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2003) (caution against conclusory pleadings lacking factual support)
- Everything on Wheels Subaru v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (prematurity standards and pleading requirements)