DUNN v. PALLETS ASSOC INC (2026)

In this workers’ compensation dispute, the employer, Pallets Associates, Inc. dba Sabine Warehouse (“Sabine”), appeals from a judgment of the workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) finding that the claimant/employee, John Melvin Leon Dunn, was injured during the course and scope of his employment with Sabine and awarding Mr. Dunn total temporary disability benefits, medical expenses, penalties, and attorney fees as a result thereof. For the following reasons, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

According to the record, Mr. Dunn was injured on June 12, 2024, while crossing the street to clock in for work as a truck driver for Sabine. The accident and events leading up to the accident were captured on surveillance video from cameras located near the scene of the accident. Mr. Dunn was working the day shift at the time of the accident, which begins at 6:00 a.m. Although employees had been told they could clock in up to 15 minutes before their shift, video evidence revealed that Mr. Dunn arrived at work on the day in question at approximately 5:10 a.m. Mr. Dunn testified that he knew the company policy was that he was to arrive at work no earlier than 15 minutes before it was time to punch in for his shift at 6:00 a.m. Nonetheless, Mr. Dunn acknowledged that he always arrived early for every job he had. Mr. Dunn's timecards reveal that he clocked in anywhere from 5:27 a.m. to 5:49 a.m. in the month prior to the accident. Moreover, according to Sabine's Human Resource Manager Linda Mundinger, Mr. Dunn had never been reprimanded for or discouraged from clocking in early. She added that Mr. Dunn's supervisor never chose to address the issue because “it didn't raise any bells or whistles in payroll” because Mr. Dunn was never paid any wages for any time before the start of his shift, 6:00 a.m.

Mr. Dunn further testified that he always “pre-tripped”¹ his truck before he clocked in for his shift. Mr. Dunn noted that on the day of the accident, he pre-tripped his truck before moving the truck to the front of the parking lot at 5:21 a.m. Mr. Dunn acknowledged that although his “activity/hold over sheets” reflected that his pre-trips were typically conducted between 6:05 a.m. and 6:25 a.m., these sheets were not accurate. Mr. Dunn indicated he filled out the sheets in this manner because that was the way he was trained. Regarding the pre-trip inspection sheets for Mr. Dunn's truck, Ms. Mundinger testified that the sheets came out of a bound book that stays in the trucks. She noted that there was no pre-trip inspection reflected in the book for the day of the accident.

The accident occurred at 5:24 a.m. After being notified of the accident, a management-level investigation ensued at Sabine. It was determined through Sabine's investigation that Mr. Dunn was not on the clock at the time of the accident, Mr. Dunn was not authorized to be on the clock at that time, and Mr. Dunn was not performing any work related to his employment with Sabine at the time of the accident. Thus, the ultimate decision reached by Sabine was that Mr. Dunn was not in the course and scope of his employment with Sabine at the time of the accident.

On June 28, 2024, Mr. Dunn filed a disputed claim for compensation against Sabine and Zurich American Insurance Company, alleging that no wage or medical benefits had been paid. In addition, Mr. Dunn made a request for penalties and attorney fees, arguing that his claim was compensable. Sabine filed an answer, generally denying Mr. Dunn's claim that he was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident and entitled to wage and medical benefits.

The matter proceeded to trial before the workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) on February 24, 2025, and was taken under advisement. Thereafter, on April 9, 2025, the WCJ issued judgment in favor of Mr. Dunn and against Sabine, finding that Mr. Dunn was within the course and scope of his employment with Sabine at the time of the accident and awarding Mr. Dunn indemnity benefits and medical expenses. The WCJ also ordered Sabine to pay Mr. Dunn $4,000.00 in penalties for its failure to pay indemnity benefits and medical expenses and $7,5000.00 in attorney fees. This appeal by Sabine followed, in which it argues that the WCJ erred in finding that Mr. Dunn was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident and in awarding penalties and attorney fees.²

Course and Scope

Sabine argues on appeal that Mr. Dunn is not entitled to coverage because this accident did not arise out of or in the course and scope of his employment with Sabine. Sabine maintains that based on the record evidence, it is immediately apparent that Mr. Dunn was neither on Sabine's premises nor was he engaged in the performance of work duties during work hours at the time of the accident.

The Workers’ Compensation Act provides coverage to an employee for personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment. La. R.S. 23:1031(A). An employee must prove the chain of causation required by the Workers’ Compensation Act by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident was work-related, that the accident caused the injury, and that the injury caused the disability. Headley v. Textron Systems, 2020-1174 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/26/21), 324 So.3d 1080, 1085. The determination of whether an injury occurred in the course and scope of employment is a mixed question of law and fact. Jourdan v. Allmerica Financial Benefit Insurance Company, 2020-0386 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/20), 319 So.3d 934, 938, writ denied, 2021-00133 (La. 3/16/21), 312 So.3d 1099.

For purposes of workers’ compensation, the requirement that an employee's injury occur “in the course of” employment focuses on the time and place relationship between the injury and the employment. Sharp v. United Fire & Indem. Co., 2015-0976 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/15), 185 So.3d 830, 833. An accident occurs in the course of employment when the employee sustains an injury while actively engaged in the performance of his duties during work hours, either on the employer's premises or at other places where employment activities take the employee. The requirement that an employee's injury “arise out of” his employment relates to the character or origin of the injury suffered by the employee and whether the injury was incidental to the employment. McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc., 2002-1539 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1135, 1140.

In the instant case, after hearing from the witnesses and considering the documentary evidence in the record, the WCJ concluded that Mr. Dunn was in the course and scope of his employment with Sabine at the time of the accident, making the following factual findings:

[Mr. Dunn] arrived early to work at Sabine, performed a mandated safety check and prepared his work vehicle for the day, all while on the [Sabine's] property. His injury occurred when he crossed the street in an effort to clock in and await his daily safety briefing. Testimony at trial established [Mr. Dunn] frequently started his workday in this manner and [Sabine] allowed him to do so. Further, the location of the accident occurred on a street utilized by those who conducted business with Sabine's client, Exxon, or with Sabine, which is a high industrial area that the public does not frequently use. The accident therefore arose out of the employment with Sabine and was incidental to [Mr. Dunn's] employment.

Following our exhaustive review of the record and the exhibits in this matter, we are unable to say that the WCJ erred in determining that Mr. Dunn was within the course and scope of his employment at that time of this accident. The WCJ's ruling is reasonably supported by the record.

Penalties and Attorney Fees

The Workers’ Compensation Act pertinently provides that, unless an employ reasonably controverts a workers’ compensation claim, its failure to pay such benefits in accordance with the Act shall result in a penalty and reasonable attorney fees. See La. R.S. 23:1201(F). An employer reasonably controverts a claim when it has sufficient factual and/or medical information to counter the employee's factual and/or medical information throughout the time it refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed. See Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La. 12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 890. Statutes providing for penalties and attorney fees are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. St. Tammany Par. Hosp. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2010-1480 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/16/11), 81 So.3d 3, 6. The crucial inquiry is whether the employer had an articulable and objective reason to deny payment at the time it took action. Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 2002-1631 (La. 2/25/03), 840 So.2d 1181, 1188. An employer should not be liable for penalties or attorney fees for taking a close factual or legal question to court for resolution. Brown v. A M Logging, 2010-1440 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/4/11), 76 So.3d 486, 496; see also La. R.S. 23:1202(F)(2).

Herein, we note the WCJ found that Mr. Dunn was entitled to penalties and attorney fees because of Sabine's “arbitrary and capricious” actions. A WCJ's determination that an employer should be cast with penalties and attorney fees is a factual question and generally reviewed under the manifest error standard of review. Authement, 840 So.2d at 1188-1189. However, where, as in the instant case, the WCJ commits legal error by applying the incorrect legal standard or principle, this court is required to determine the facts de novo from the entire record and render a decision on the merits. Johnson v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc., 92-2187 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/11/94), 636 So.2d 914, 916.

In this case, after carefully considering the record and the facts known to the employer, we conclude that Sabine had sufficient information to “reasonably controvert” Mr. Dunn's claim that he was within the course and scope of his employment with Sabine at the time of the accident. The representatives from Sabine based their determination regarding course and scope on the video evidence as well as Mr. Dunn's employment records. Sabine concluded that Mr. Dunn was neither on the clock at the time of the accident, nor was he authorized to be on the clock as he had not been approved for overtime.³ Based on the evidence presented, we find that Sabine's challenge to Mr. Dunn's claim was not frivolous and was supported by the record. See Pitre v. Buddy's Seafood, 2011-0175 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/16/12), 102 So.3d 815, 824, writ denied, 2012-2058 (La. 11/16/12), 102 So.3d 41. Accordingly, we conclude that the WCJ erred in imposing penalties and attorney fees against Sabine pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), and we reverse that portion of the judgment.

DECREE

For the above and foregoing reasons, we reverse the portion of the WCJ April 9, 2025 judgment that awarded penalties and attorney fees against Pallets Associates, Inc. dba Sabine Warehouse and in favor of John Melvin Leon Dunn. In all other respects, we affirm the April 9, 2025 judgment. We assess all costs associated with this appeal equally between Pallets Associates, Inc. dba Sabine Warehouse and John Melvin Leon Dunn. This memorandum opinion is issued in compliance with Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B).

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

I dissent in part from the majority's decision which finds that, at the time of the accident in question, Mr. Dunn was in the course and scope of his employment.

For purposes of workers’ compensation, the requirement that an employee's injury occur “in the course of” employment focuses on the time and place relationship between the injury and the employment. The principal criteria for determining “course of employment” are time, place, and employment activity. An accident occurs in the course of employment when the employee sustains an injury while actively engaged in the performance of his duties during work hours, either on the employer's premises or at other places where employment activity takes the employee. The requirement that an employee's injury “arise out of” his employment relates to the character or origin of the injury suffered by the employee and whether the injury was incidental to the employment. Holden v. Mike's Catfish, Inc., 2017-1056 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/27/13), 243 So.3d 588, 591-92. Furthermore, an accident arises out of employment if the risk from which the injury resulted was greater for the employee than for a person not engaged in the employment. The “arising out of” requirement depends on the character or source of the risk that gave rise to the injury and on the relationship of the risk to the nature of the employment; the objective of the “arising out of” inquiry is to separate accidents attributable to employment risks, which are covered, from accidents attributable to personal risks, which are not Lafitte-Nesom v. Christus Schumpert Highland, 50,496 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2/24/16), 188 So.3d 1100, 1104.

At the time of the accident, Mr. Dunn was neither on the clock nor was he authorized to be on the clock as he had not been approved for overtime, had not performed any required pre-trip inspection reports, and as noted by the employer's HR manager, was simply relocating “his vehicle for [his] convenience[.]” Additionally, Mr. Dunn was on the employer's premises nearly twenty-minutes before he was allowed to clock in, and thirty-five minutes before the start of his shift. Again, while coverage under the workers’ compensation statutes has been extended in some cases to include accidents during times for rest or lunch periods or before and after work on the employer's premises, or to include accidents at places where employment duties are performed off the employer's premises, the principal criteria for determining course of employment are time, place, and employment activity. Mundy v. Department of Health and Human Resources, 593 So.2d 346, 349 (La. 1992). Although Mr. Dunn was on his employer's premises at the time of the accident, he was neither engaged in any employment activity nor performing such actions during work hours. Mr. Dunn's accident was not more attributable to an employment risk than a personal risk. Therefore, I would find that Mr. Dunn was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

Nevertheless, and for these same reasons, I would agree in part with the majority's decision to reverse the workers’ compensation judge's award of penalties and attorney's fees, finding that the employer reasonably controverted Mr. Dunn's claim.

FOOTNOTES

1.   “Pre-trip” inspections, which typically take between 10 and 20 minutes, are a Department of Transportation requirement that entail drivers going through “checkpoints and certain things to make sure their vehicle is roadworthy.”

2.   Sabine also assigned error to the WCJ's award of temporary total disability benefits, medical expenses, and legal interest on all amounts awarded. However, none of these issues were briefed by Sabine in its appeal to this court. All assignments of error and issues for review must be briefed. The court may consider as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review that has not been briefed. Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4(B)(4). Accordingly, we consider these arguments to be abandoned.

3.   According to Ms. Mundinger, even when they viewed the videos, which was done after the determination as to course and scope had already been made, Sabine's position remained the same. She indicated that the videos showed no evidence that Mr. Dunn had pre-tripped his truck prior to the accident. Rather, Ms. Mundinger testified that the videos simply showed that Mr. Dunn “relocated his vehicle for [his] convenience,” an action that was not work related.

LANIER, J.

Wolfe, J. dissents and assigns reasons.