Wortham v. Acadia Healthcare, LLC
160 So. 3d 602
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Dr. Roger Wortham contracted with Acadia Healthcare beginning Jan. 15, 2011: $180,000 base salary, reimbursement for certain licenses/dues/CME, and a bonus of 50% of collections over costs; he assigned billing rights to the hospital.
- The one-year written contract expired Jan. 14, 2012; Dr. Wortham continued working without a new written agreement and resigned effective March 24, 2013.
- Wortham requested billing and expense data and submitted reimbursement claims (licenses, dues, two CME conferences); Acadia did not respond until the morning of trial.
- Wortham sued for unpaid bonuses (2012 and partial 2013), expense reimbursements, penalty wages and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:631–632.
- Trial court awarded bonuses ($21,729.93), reimbursements ($7,021.76), attorney fees ($11,409.50) and costs, but denied penalty wages; both parties appealed.
- On appeal the court affirmed the bonus, reimbursements, and fee awards, reversed the denial of penalty wages, awarded $61,363.67 in penalties and $7,500 in appellate attorney fees, and assessed appeal costs to Acadia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post‑2012 employment terms remained the same as the expired written contract | Wortham: all contract terms continued informally after expiration | Acadia: contract expired and Wortham became at‑will; only base salary continued | Court: contract terms continued; factual finding upheld under manifest error standard |
| Whether the bonus is annual or cumulative across years (affecting bonus entitlement) | Wortham: bonus is calculated on an annual reset; entitled to 2012 and partial 2013 bonuses | Acadia: bonus is cumulative (running tally), prior year deficits preclude bonus | Court: found sufficient evidence bonus is calculated annually; affirmed award for 2012 and 2013 |
| Whether the bonus/reimbursements qualify as ‘‘wages’’ under La. R.S. 23:631–632 | Wortham: bonus/commissions are calculable at termination and are wages payable on demand | Acadia: bonus not wages because only determinable after fiscal year end; not payable under wage statutes | Court: treated bonuses as commission‑type wages payable at termination; wage statutes apply |
| Whether penalty wages and appellate attorney fees are recoverable under La. R.S. 23:632 | Wortham: demanded payment; Acadia failed to pay or respond in good faith, so penalties and fees are due | Acadia: had reasonable questions and defenses; fee award improper if amounts not due | Court: affirmed trial court’s attorney‑fee award, reversed denial of penalty wages (employer’s conduct not in good faith); awarded $61,363.67 penalty wages and $7,500 appellate fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Becht v. Morgan Bldg. & Spas, Inc., 843 So.2d 1109 (La. 2003) (elements to recover penalty wages under La. R.S. 23:632 and burden on employee)
- Dore v. WHC Lease Service, Inc., 528 So.2d 235 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1988) (bonus payable only after audited financials may not be wages payable at termination)
- Ward v. Tenneco Oil Co., 564 So.2d 814 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1990) (La. R.S. 23:631 not applicable to incentive plan contingent on a future sale)
- Brown v. Navarre Chevrolet, Inc., 610 So.2d 165 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1992) (commission‑type bonuses can be wages payable at termination)
- Beard v. Summit Institute of Pulmonary Medicine and Rehabilitation, Inc., 707 So.2d 1233 (La. 1998) (equitable defenses may bar penalty wage awards under La. R.S. 23:632)
- Newsom v. Global Data Systems, Inc., 107 So.3d 781 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2012) (penal statute construed strictly; good‑faith disputes can negate penalties)