ANDREW HONEYCUTT v. ACENTRIA INSURANCE AND LCCI READY MIX CONCRETE (2026)

This appeal arises from a dispute over entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. Having failed to meet the burden of proof at trial on the matter, the worker's compensation judge (“WCJ”) granted an involuntary dismissal of the worker's claims. A review of the record reveals the involuntary dismissal was providently granted. The judgment of the WCJ is affirmed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Andrew Honeycutt (“Mr. Honeycutt”) was working as a concrete delivery driver for Intrastate Trucking, LLC (“Intrastate”) on July 15, 2022, when the truck he was driving turned over into a ditch. Intrastate was hired by Landrieu Concrete and Cement Industries, LLC (“Landrieu”). On the First Report of Injury, Mr. Honeycutt indicated that he suffered an injury to his shoulder in the accident. While the accident occurred on a Friday, Mr. Honeycutt took the next Monday off from work, but returned that Tuesday.

Approximately three months after the accident, Mr. Honeycutt filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation against Landrieu ¹ and Acentria Insurance ² wherein he alleged to have sustained a spinal injury in the accident.

Landrieu filed a motion for summary judgment, contending Mr. Honeycutt “willfully made false statements or representations for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits in violation of La. R.S. 23:1208.” In support, Landrieu submitted an affidavit from a private investigator and corresponding video purporting to show Mr. Honeycutt performing physical tasks he alleged the accident prevented him from so doing. The WCJ denied the motion for summary judgment, finding there was no proof that the man in the video was Mr. Honeycutt. Therefore, genuine issues of material fact existed.

Subsequently, Landrieu filed a motion in limine to exclude Mr. Honeycutt's witnesses and evidence due to his failure to file a pre-trial statement. The WCJ granted the motion at trial. Mr. Honeycutt was permitted to testify. Following his testimony, Landrieu moved for an involuntary dismissal, which was granted. Mr. Honeycutt's appeal followed.

On appeal, Mr. Honeycutt contends the judgment “is contrary to the facts and law” and “constitutes abuse of discretion.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The overarching standard of review in workers’ compensation cases is as follows:

․ factual findings are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review. Banks v. Indus. Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840, p. 7 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 551, 556. In applying the manifest error-clearly wrong standard, the appellate court must not determine whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Banks, 96-2840 at pp. 7-8, 696 So.2d at 556. When there are two permissible views of the evidence, a factfinder's choice between them can never be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Id. Thus, “if the [factfinder's] findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Id. (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1112 (La.1990).) However, when the court of appeal finds a manifest error of material fact that was made in the lower court, it is required, to review the facts de novo from the entire record and render a judgment on the merits. Rareshide v. Mobil Oil Corp., 97-1376 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/22/98), 719 So.2d 494, 499.

Gee Cee Grp., Inc. v. Thomas, 2012-0514, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/31/12), 103 So.3d 671, 674.

More specifically, “[m]otions in limine are reviewed by appellate courts using the abuse of discretion standard of review, which gives district courts ‘great discretion’ in their consideration of the motion.” Kullman Firm v. Integrated Elec. Techs., Inc., 2024-0138, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/27/24), 401 So.3d 855, 862.

Further, “[t]he trial court is granted much discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for involuntary dismissal.” Williams v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 2010-1441, pp. 2-3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/9/11), 61 So.3d 48, 50.

MOTION IN LIMINE

Landrieu filed a motion in limine to exclude Mr. Honeycutt's witnesses and evidence because he failed to submit a pretrial statement. Mr. Honeycutt did not oppose the motion until the morning of trial. Mr. Honeycutt admitted that the pretrial statements were not filed for any of the trial dates set in the matter.

The WCJ granted Landrieu's motion and excluded Mr. Honeycutt's witnesses and evidence. Mr. Honeycutt was permitted to testify and counsel was permitted to call and/or reference Landrieu's witnesses and evidence. The record reflects that each time the WCJ issued a scheduling order, it required the parties’ pretrial statements be filed forty-five days before trial. Mr. Honeycutt repeatedly failed to file a pretrial statement. Accordingly, we do not find the WCJ abused its vast discretion by granting Landrieu's motion in limine and excluding Mr. Honeycutt's witnesses and exhibits.

INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Once the plaintiff rests, “any party ․ may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the facts and law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.” La. C.C.P. art. 1672(B). “The standard for granting an involuntary dismissal in a bench trial in a defendant's favor is lower than the standard for granting a directed verdict in a jury trial.” Williams, 2010-1441, p. 2, 61 So.3d at 50. When deciding “a motion for involuntary dismissal, the court is required to evaluate the evidence without applying any special inferences in favor of either party.” Id.

“In order to recover, the injured employee must establish (1) a work[-] related accident; (2) a disability; and (3) a causal connection between the accident and the disability.” Wilkerson v. City of New Orleans Fire Dep't, 2003-1550, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/3/04), 871 So.2d 375, 377.

At the hearing, the parties stipulated: 1) that Mr. Honeycutt was in the course and scope of employment when the accident occurred; 2) to the date of the accident; and 3) that Mr. Honeycutt was working for Intrastate.

The judgment of the WCJ provided that Landrieu's motion for involuntary dismissal was granted “on the grounds that [Mr. Honeycutt] failed to meet his burden of proof at trial by showing a causal connection between his injuries and the July 15, 2022 work-related accident by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence.”

Even though the WCJ granted Landrieu's motion in limine, Mr. Honeycutt was permitted to testify. Mr. Honeycutt stated that the truck “slid” into a ditch after which he began experiencing pain, so he went to East Jefferson General Hospital for treatment.³ Mr. Honeycutt testified that East Jefferson General Hospital said the source of pain was his rotator cuff. The accident occurred on a Friday, July 15, 2022, and Mr. Honeycutt returned to work the following Tuesday. The work records document that he worked regular hours and overtime. However, Mr. Honeycutt could not recall whether he was driving or performing clerical work. He stated that he was on pain medication and did not remember everything. Mr. Honeycutt attended a few other medical appointments, but did not recall receiving any medical treatment after September 2022, roughly two months after the accident. Further, Mr. Honeycutt could not remember any names of the doctors.

Mr. Honeycutt admitted that Landrieu's video depicted him performing physical activities when he was allegedly placed on a “no work” status. He testified that he was working for his party bus business, which was one of four businesses he owned.

Given the lack of evidence produced by Mr. Honeycutt, we find no error in the WCJ determination that he failed to meet his burden of proof regarding the causal connection and the accident. Mr. Honeycutt contends he received treatment the first day, but has no records of same. Moreover, he alleges he was unable to work, but was captured on video working for his party bus business. Additionally, he performed work, including overtime, for Landrieu for quite some time prior to stating he was unable to continue working. Accordingly, we do not find that the WCJ abused its discretion by granting Landrieu's motion for involuntary dismissal.

DECREE

For the above-mentioned reasons, the judgment of the WCJ is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mistakenly identified as LCCI Ready Mix Concrete.

2.   Mr. Honeycutt alleged Acentria Insurance insured Landrieu. However, Acentria Insurance was later dismissed from the proceedings via an exception of no cause of action and consent judgment because it was neither an insurer nor a third-party administrator.

3.   The medical records for East Jefferson General Hospital were not introduced and Mr. Honeycutt stated he did not know where the records were located.

Judge Rosemary Ledet