MACKEL v. HAUL CO OF LOUISIANA (2026)

U-Haul Company of Louisiana (“U-Haul”) appeals the Office of Workers’ Compensation's (“OWC”) March 28, 2024 judgment finding in favor of the claimant, Virdis Mackel (“Mr. Mackel”) and awarding penalties and attorney's fees against it. In response, Mr. Mackel filed an answer requesting this Court grant him additional attorney's fees for defending the appeal. For the following reasons, we grant Mr. Mackel's answer.

DISCUSSION

A more detailed background of this case can be found in our opinion on U-Haul's appeal. In brief, Mr. Mackel suffered PTSD and was unable to return to work after being assaulted at his job. U-Haul discontinued Mr. Mackel's workers’ compensation benefits after discovering Mr. Mackel made misrepresentations to his treating doctors regarding his past military history, his ability to leave his home, and his capability to drive. U-Haul alleges that those misrepresentations were made willfully for the purpose of receiving workers’ compensation benefits in violation of La. R.S. 23:1208. The OWC disagreed and issued a judgment in favor of Mr. Mackel. U-Haul appealed.

On appeal, we affirmed the OWC's judgment. In doing so, we noted that the record reflected that four of the five doctors who Mr. Mackel saw, including two that were hired by U-Haul, found Mr. Mackel's PTSD diagnosis was appropriate and that he would benefit from further treatment. Only one doctor out of the entirety of the record believed Mr. Mackel was malingering for litigation purposes. The OWC judge found Mr. Mackel's explanations for his inaccurate statements to be credible, and we concluded that the OWC's judgment was not manifestly erroneous.

With the above in mind, we now turn to Mr. Mackel's answer to this appeal. Mr. Mackel requests this Court grant him additional attorney's fees for defending this appeal. Our jurisprudence holds that a “worker's compensation claimant who timely answers the appeal is entitled to increased attorney fees and penalties to reflect additional time incurred in defending against [an] employer/insurer's unsuccessful appeal, especially where the claimant makes a clear showing of the employer's arbitrary and capricious refusal to pay the claim.” Lentz v. City of New Orleans, 2022-0500, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/15/22), 353 So. 3d 1060, 1067 (quoting Hucke v. New Orleans Glass, 2003-1709, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/11/04), 868 So. 2d 166, 170-71). Here, the OWC found that U-Haul failed to provide evidence or testimony to support its position that Mr. Mackel made fraudulent misrepresentations in violation of La. R.S. 23:1208. The OWC found that U-Haul acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Mr. Mackel's benefits.

As we affirmed the OWC's judgment, including the portion finding that U-Haul unjustifiably discontinued Mr. Mackel's benefits, we grant Mr. Mackel's answer. However, although Mr. Mackel requests an additional $5,000.00 in attorney's fees, we find that $3,000.00 is more appropriate in accordance with the OWC's award and past awards from the Fourth Circuit.¹ Therefore, we award Mr. Mackel an additional $3,000.00 in attorney's fees for the defense of this appeal.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we grant Mr. Mackel's answer to U-Haul's appeal and award him an additional $3,000.00 in attorney's fees for the defense of the appeal.

ANSWER GRANTED

FOOTNOTES

1.   See e.g. Shubert v. City of New Orleans, 2024-0686, p. 13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/28/25), 414 So. 3d 891, 900-01 (awarding $2,500.00 in additional attorney's fees); Prevost v. City of New Orleans Fire Dep't, 2024-0115, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/4/24), 400 So. 3d 1171, 1178 (awarding $2,500.00 in additional attorney's fees); Hucke, 2003-1709, p. 7, 868 So. 2d at 171 (awarding $3,000.00 in additional attorney's fees).

Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott