Slade v. State ex rel. University of Louisiana at Monroe
79 So. 3d 463
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- claimant Herman Slade was injured on June 13, 2006 while serving as director of farm operations at ULM, undergoing three knee surgeries including a total knee replacement.
- He received supplemental earnings benefits (SEB) from July 1 to September 24, 2006, followed by temporary total disability benefits until March 24, 2008 when he was released to return to work.
- His employment was terminated during workers’ compensation benefits; he later worked for Southern Seed Supply but continued having knee problems.
- On January 2, 2009, Dr. Brown limited his work activities to 12 medium-level, reducing his income and ability to perform duties from his pre-injury job.
- Slade filed a claim for SEB and medical treatment on May 19, 2010, which was denied; he initiated proceedings on June 15, 2010 for SEB and medical treatment.
- The WCJ initially denied SEB, then granted a motion for a new trial; the WCJ reversed and granted summary judgment in Slade’s favor on SEB but denied attorney fees and penalties, which the State appealed and Slade answered seeking penalties and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the WCJ properly reviewed the prior denial of summary judgment | Slade argues the WCJ correctly rectified an error in the prior ruling. | ULM contends the WCJ cannot grant relief from a non-final order via a new trial motion. | WCJ properly exercised continuing jurisdiction to address the error. |
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to SEB entitlement | Slade contends he cannot earn 90% of pre-injury wages due to knee restrictions. | ULM asserts wage fluctuations create a genuine issue about earning capacity. | Summary judgment in claimant’s favor was proper; no genuine issue precluded SEB. |
| Whether penalties and attorney fees for nonpayment of SEB are warranted | Slade seeks penalties and fees for delayed SEB payments. | ULM argues benefits were reasonably controverted based on wage fluctuation evidence. | WCJ did not abuse discretion; penalties and fees are not warranted. |
| Whether the judgment should be modified to include penalties and fees for nonpayment | Slade asserts entitlement to penalties and fees. | ULM contends there was reasonable controversion. | No modification; discretionary denial of penalties/fees stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equipment Co., 748 So.2d 399 (La. 1999) (flexibility of WC judgments; modification not res judicata)
- Jackson v. Iberia Parish Gov’t, 732 So.2d 517 (La. 1999) (liberally construed modification authority for WC judgments)
- Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 646 So.2d 905 (La. 1994) (WC Act aims for flexible, liberal interpretation in favor of workmen)
- Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 696 So.2d 551 (La. 1997) (burden-shifting framework for SEB eligibility)
- Daigle v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 545 So.2d 1005 (La. 1989) (what an employee earns/can earn affects SEB analysis)
- J.P. Morgan Chase v. Louis, 12 So.3d 440 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (penalties for nonpayment require a valid basis to deny benefits)
- Taylor v. Hollywood Casino, 935 So.2d 293 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2006) (WC penalties and attorney fees reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- J.E. Merit Constructors Inc. v. Hickman, 776 So.2d 435 (La. 2001) (penalties under La. R.S. 23:1201(F) require bona fide dispute)