Martin v. Texaco, Inc.Martin v. Texaco, Inc.
Lana S. MARTIN,
v.
TEXACO, INC.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
*550 Cameron B. Simmons, Jeanerette, for appellant Lana S. Martin.
Wayne G. Zeringue, Jr., New Orleans, for appellee Texaco, Inc.
Before FOIL, WHIPPLE and KUHN, JJ.
FOIL, Judge.
This appeal challenges thе action of a worker's compensation hearing officer in dismissing a worker's motion for a modification of a judgment denying her compensation benefits pursuant to an exception of no cause of action. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff, Lana Martin, injured her right knee on April 10, 1989, while attempting to cross a guardrail in her employer's parking lot. She rеceived worker's compensation benefits from her employer, Texaco, Inc., until April 17, 1991, when those benefits were terminated. She filed a claim in the Office of Workеr's Compensation seeking reinstatement of benefits, alleging that she was totally disabled or alternatively, that she was entitled to supplemental earnings benefits.
The mattеr was heard before Hearing Officer Sheral Kellar on September 2, 1992. On May 20, 1993, the hearing officer denied plaintiff's claim for benefits upon finding that plaintiff was not disabled beyоnd the April 17, 1991, termination date. Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. On December 9, 1993, while the appeal was pending, plaintiff filed another claim in the Office of Worker's Compensation, in which she alleged that her work injury caused her to sustain another injury. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that on May 6, 1993, while recovering from the work injury to her right knee, the weakened right knee "gave out" on her, causing her to fall. Plaintiff asserted that she injured her left knee in the fall, and that she was entitlеd to receive compensation benefits for the injury to her left knee. Texaco filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the Office of Wоrker's Compensation, citing the pending appeal of plaintiff's claim for worker's compensation benefits.
On March 30, 1994, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the heаring officer's ruling that plaintiff was not disabled. Thereafter, on July 19, 1994, plaintiff filed a motion for a modification of Hearing Officer Kellar's May 20, 1993 judgment denying her compensation benеfits based upon an alleged change of circumstances. In connection with the motion, plaintiff filed an amended 1008 claim form in which she alleged that the injury to her right knee had worsened since the hearing officer's judgment.
In opposition to the motion, Texaco filed an exception of no cause of action, claiming that Louisiana law does not afford a worker's compensation claimant the right to seek a modification of a judgment denying compensation benefits. Glynn Voisin, the hearing officer assigned to the case, agreed and dismissed plaintiff's motion for a modification of the judgment. This appeal followed.
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MODIFICATION OF BENEFITS
The peremptory exceptiоn of no cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the petition. In assessing the validity of the exception, all well-pleaded allegations of fact аre accepted as true. If the allegations set forth a cause of action as to any part of the demand, the exception must be overruled. Kyle v. Civil Service Commission,
For purposes of the exception, it must be accepted that plaintiff's right knee condition has worsened since the judgment of the hearing officer. Indeed, Texaco stipulated *551 for the purpose of the exception of no cause of action that there had been a change in plaintiff's condition. However, Texaco urges that Louisiana law allows a modification of a compensation judgment only to the extent that an award of benefits is actually made. Because there wаs no award of compensation in this case, Texaco contends, there is nothing to modify, and the hearing officer does not have authority to reopen the judgmеnt. Texaco posits that plaintiff is really seeking a reversal of the hearing officer's judgment denying benefits; however, plaintiff has already appealed that judgment аnd lost.
Plaintiff argues that
Upon the application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change in conditions, the hearing officer may, after a contradictory hearing, review any award, and, on such review, may make an award ending, diminishing, or increasing the compensation previously awarded, subject to the maximum or minimum provided in the Worker's Compensation Act, and shall state his conclusions of fact and rulings of law, and the director shall immediately send to the parties a copy of the award.
Prior to its repeal in 1990,
We disagree. This court has previously construed the term "judgment of compensation" differently from the Green case cited by plaintiff. In Gaspard v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York,
We believe that under the clear language of
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we hold that
AFFIRMED.
WHIPPLE, J., concurs, with reasons assigned.
WHIPPLE, Judge, concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion insofar as it holds that
The LDOL 1008 claim filed on December 9, 1993 sets forth that "Claimant's injured right knee gave out while standing causing claimant to fall injuring left knee." (Emphasis added.) This claim form could be construed as asserting a new injury or perhaps a developmental injury not addressed in (and therefore, not precluded by) the previous claim and related appeal. However, in this case, the claimant also filed, on July 19, 1994, a "Motion to Modify Judgment" and Amended LDOL 1008 and Memorandum, wherein she specifically asserts that she is "seeking modification of [the] judgment."
Thus, since plaintiff's claim is asserted herein as a petition to modify the prior (and final) judgment of May 20, 1993, as opposed to asserting a new claim or other claim for benefits due based on a developing injury, the result reached by the majority herein is correct.
I write separately to express my opinion that this holding does not operate to prohibit the claimant from asserting a claim for a new or developing injury causing disability.