198 So. 3d 1202
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Claimant Claudette Sislo, a NOCCA administrator, alleges she was exposed to airborne dust from sandblasting/waterproofing at a neighboring building (Rice Mill) while on NOCCA premises, later hospitalized and ultimately required a double lung transplant.
- Exposures she complained of occurred when she was on NOCCA property, primarily in the employer-controlled parking lot after she had "clocked out" and was approaching her vehicle; she had permission to park closer to her office that week.
- Sislo filed a disputed claim (Form LDOL-WC-1008) alleging occupational injury/accident and later amended to seek penalties and attorney’s fees for NOCCA’s failure to pay benefits.
- NOCCA moved for summary judgment arguing the exposure did not occur in the course of employment and the risk was no greater for Sislo than for the public (an open-air, non-employer risk); NOCCA submitted evidence suggesting the dust affected other nearby properties/public areas.
- Sislo moved for summary judgment seeking benefits from a specified date, relying on medical opinions linking her condition to workplace dust; the OWC denied her motion, finding factual disputes on causation, and granted NOCCA’s motion, dismissing the claim.
- On appeal the court reversed the grant of summary judgment to NOCCA (finding genuine issues as to whether the risk was peculiar to employer premises), affirmed denial of Sislo’s motion (causation disputed), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury occurred "in the course of" employment | Sislo: remained on employer premises when exposed; course of employment extends while on premises before departure | NOCCA: she had clocked out and was not performing duties; exposure occurred after work | Court: factual dispute exists; being on employer premises supports course-of-employment inquiry (summary judgment for NOCCA reversed) |
| Whether injury "arose out of" employment (risk greater for employee) | Sislo: employment required presence on premises, increasing frequency/exposure relative to public | NOCCA: airborne dust was an open-air hazard affecting public equally; not peculiar to employer | Court: insufficient undisputed evidence that risk was equal to public; genuine factual issue remains (NOCCA not entitled to summary judgment) |
| Application of threshold/occupational disease doctrines | Sislo argued threshold doctrine applied (but court did not resolve because remand) | NOCCA disputed occupational disease characterization | Court: did not reach threshold or occupational-disease issues due to disposition on course/arising-out grounds |
| Entitlement to benefits, penalties, attorney’s fees | Sislo: medical opinions link condition to workplace and NOCCA unreasonably controverted benefits | NOCCA: contested causation and compensability | Court: causation disputed; OWC denial of Sislo’s summary judgment affirmed; further proceedings required on benefits/penalties |
Key Cases Cited
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Res., 593 So.2d 346 (La. 1992) (arising-out inquiry: risk must be greater for employee than public)
- Basse v. Westinghouse Elec., Inc., 637 So.2d 1157 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (parking-lot/course and arising-out analysis; distinguishing open, general risks)
- Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So.3d 607 (La. 2015) (summary judgment burdens and procedure)
- Carter v. Lanzetta, 193 So.2d 259 (La. 1966) (employee covered while on employer premises within reasonable time to arrive/depart)
- Ardoin v. Cleco Power, L.L.C., 38 So.3d 264 (La. 2010) (course and scope includes reasonable period to wind up affairs on premises)
- O’Regan v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc., 758 So.2d 124 (La. 2000) (no-fault workers’ compensation scheme explained)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 866 So.2d 228 (La. 2004) (credibility determinations inappropriate on summary judgment)