LAMAR LUCAS v. NOLA SOURCE SERVICES LLC AND UNITED WISCONSIN INSURANCE COMPANY (2026)

AFFIRMED

Nola 1 Source Services, LLC and United Wisconsin Insurance Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Nola 1”) seek review of the September 11, 2025 judgment awarding workers’ compensation benefits to Lamar Lucas (hereinafter “Mr. Lucas”). After consideration of the record before this Court and the applicable law, we affirm the September 11, 2025 judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 9, 2021, Mr. Lucas was hired by Nola 1 as a truck driver.¹ On the same day, Mr. Lucas completed a Post Offer of Employment Medical Questionnaire (hereinafter “the Medical Questionnaire”), which included forty-three “yes/no” questions related to prior medical conditions. The Medical Questionnaire included the following acknowledgment:

WARNING: Pursuant to [La. R.S. 23:1208.1], I understand that my failure to answer truthfully any of the following questions may result in denial or forfeiture of any right I, or my dependents, may have to workers’ compensation benefits, including medical treatment and expenses.

The Medical Questionnaire requested information as to whether Mr. Lucas currently had, or ever had, injuries to his back, neck, or hip, to which he answered “no.”²

On October 26, 2021, near the end of his work shift, Mr. Lucas was climbing into his work truck when the truck's step suddenly broke causing him to fall backwards onto the ground. Mr. Lucas immediately notified his supervisor of the fall. He advised his supervisor that he was experiencing pain to his head, neck, lower back and hip and would seek emergency treatment. The emergency room notes indicated that Mr. Lucas suffered a strain of the neck, a contusion on the left hip and an unspecified head injury. A week later, Nola 1 instructed Mr. Lucas to visit Concentra Urgent Care for further medical treatment.³ During the initial visit, Concentra confirmed the emergency room's diagnosis of hip, back and neck strain.⁴ Mr. Lucas continued treatment with Concentra and followed its recommendations for physical therapy, medication and light restricted duties. On November 11, 2021, Mr. Lucas returned to work but with modified duties.⁵ During a follow-up visit with Concentra, Mr. Lucas explained that he was suffering increased pain in his back and hip.⁶

Following treatment at Concentra, Mr. Lucas was examined by Dr. Marco Rodriguez (hereinafter “Dr. Rodriguez”), the orthopedist of his choice. Dr. Rodriguez diagnosed Mr. Lucas with work related injuries including: lumbosacral facet joint syndrome, cervical facet syndrome and sacroiliitis. Dr. Rodriguez recommended Mr. Lucas restrict his work duties, receive medication and physical therapy for treatment and ordered him to have cervical and lumbar MRI imaging. Based on the MRI results, Dr. Rodriguez diagnosed Mr. Lucas with a disc herniation, disc bulging, facet hypertrophy, facet joint effusions and suggested that he see an orthopedic hip specialist.⁷

On December 16, 2021, Mr. Lucas filed a 1008 disputed claim form with the Office of Workers’ Compensation against Nola 1. Mr. Lucas maintained that he fell to the ground from the top step of his truck resulting in multiple disabling injuries including, but not limited to, his head, neck, shoulder, back and hip. Nola 1 answered and subsequently filed a motion to compel an independent medical exam.⁸ Mr. Lucas was examined by Dr. Ralph Katz at the Westside Orthopedic Clinic. Dr. Katz issued an initial medical report on December 21, 2022, in which he diagnosed Mr. Lucas with low back strain and left hip piriformis syndrome. He included in his report that, “[b]ased on the fact that [Mr. Lucas] had no prior issues with his lower back before this accident․both his lower back and left hip issues were precipitated by the October 26, 2021 work accident.” Dr. Katz recommended that after four to six weeks of light duty work, physical therapy and medication, Mr. Lucas should be able to “return back to full duty work.” The next year, Mr. Lucas returned to Dr. Katz for a follow-up exam. Dr. Katz reported that Mr. Lucas had fully recovered from his injuries and could return to work full duty. However, Mr. Lucas did not return to work and continued medical treatment for his injuries with Dr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Lucas’ records from New Orleans East Healthcare Center were produced during discovery and referenced two prior motor vehicle accidents. Mr. Lucas was involved in a car accident in July of 2018 in his personal vehicle. He suffered injuries to his neck and back. After receiving physical therapy, his injuries resolved. In March of 2020, while Mr. Lucas was self-employed, he was injured while driving a dump truck. He sustained injuries to his neck and back which also resolved after weeks of physical therapy and treatment. The New Orleans East Healthcare Center's medical records suggested that Mr. Lucas recovered from the previous accidents. At the time Mr. Lucas was hired by Nola 1, he was not receiving medical treatment for the 2018 or 2020 accidents.

On July 25, 2022, Nola 1 filed a Notice of Claim with the Second Injury Fund seeking reimbursement for the workers’ compensation benefits paid to Mr. Lucas as a result of the October 26, 2021 work injury.⁹ In its claim with the Second Injury Fund, Nola 1 described Mr. Lucas’ subsequent injury as, “[the injured worker] hurt his neck, shoulder and hip in a fall.” The claim listed Mr. Lucas’ preexisting conditions as hypertension, motor vehicle accident, back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain and hip pain.¹⁰ The Second Injury Fund denied Nola 1's application, listing the following reasons: (1) lack of a pre-existing permanent partial disability; (2) lack of knowledge of the permanent partial disability if any; and (3) lack of merger even if there is a permanent partial disability.¹¹ The denial specifically stated that “the subsequent injury was not caused or brought about by the existence of any pre-existing disability.”

On November 16, 2023, Nola 1 discontinued paying Mr. Lucas’ indemnity benefits and filed an appeal of the Second Injury Board's denial with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. After several continuances, the case proceeded to trial on May 27, 2025. By judgment dated July 22, 2025, the trial court found that Nola 1 was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable in its failure to pay indemnity and medical benefits and that Mr. Lucas was entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits, penalties and attorney fees. Mr. Lucas filed a motion for new trial to address the trial court's calculation of his past due indemnity benefits. On September 11, 2025, the trial court issued an amended judgment, correcting its calculation of Mr. Lucas’ indemnity benefits.¹² This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court has previously set forth a mix-standard of review for workers’ compensation disputes:

[An] appellate court reviews the [Office of Workers’ Compensation's] findings of fact under a manifest error or clearly wrong standard. Ardoin v. Firestone Polymers, L.L.C., 10-0245, pp. 5-6 (La. 1/19/11), 56 So.3d 215, 219 (citing Bruno v. Harbert Int'l Inc., 593 So.2d 357, 361 (La. 1992); Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989)). The Office of Workers’ Compensation's] findings “as to whether the worker's testimony is credible and whether the worker has carried his burden of proof are factual determinations that may not be disturbed on review absent a showing of manifest error.” Duran v. Turner Indus. Grp., LLC, 11-0210, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/20/11), 70 So.3d 1074, 1076 (citing Bruno, 593 So.2d at 361). Questions of law in a workers’ compensation proceeding, however, are reviewed de novo to determine whether the ruling was legally correct. Tulane Univ. Hosp. & Clinic v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 11-0179, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/29/11), 70 So.3d 988, 990.

Singleton v. Dillard Univ., 2023-0053, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/4/23), 382 So.3d 902, 906. “The decision to impose penalties and fees is essentially a factual issue subject to the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.” Shubert v. City of New Orleans, 2024-0686, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/28/25), 414 So.3d 891, 899 (quoting Lentz v. City of New Orleans, Police Dep't, 2022-0500, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/15/22), 353 So.3d 1060, 1067. With these principles in mind, we now analyze the trial court's ruling.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Nola 1 presents two assignments of error for review. In its first assignment of error, Nola 1 argues the trial court erred in determining that it was not affected by Mr. Lucas’ inaccurate responses on the Medical Questionnaire. In its second assignment of error, Nola 1 contends that the trial court erred in awarding penalties and attorney fees. We address each assignment of error in turn.

Forfeiture of Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Nola 1 argues the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Lucas’ responses on the Medical Questionnaire did not violate La. R.S. 23:1208.1.¹³ Specifically, Nola 1 maintains that Mr. Lucas’ failure to disclose his prior neck and back injuries on the Medical Questionnaire deprived it of the requisite prior knowledge to receive reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund. Conversely, Mr. Lucas argues that his answers on the Medical Questionnaire were truthful as his previous injuries were minor, he had fully recovered and had never been disabled. Mr. Lucas further contends that in the event his answers to the questions were found to be untruthful, his answers did not prejudice Nola 1's Second Injury Fund reimbursement because there is no evidence that he had a pre-existing disability or that the current injury “merged” with a pre-existing disability.

An employer may seek reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits from the Second Injury Fund. However, the employer must meet the following requirements: (1) the employee had a pre-existing permanent partial disability that is so serious to hinder employment; (2) the employer had actual knowledge of the employee's permanent partial disability before the injury that is the basis of the workers’ compensation claim; and (3) the permanent partial disability merged with the injury to produce a greater disability. Wise v. J.E. Merit Constructors, Inc., 1997-0684, p. 12 (La. 1/21/98), 707 So.2d 1214, 1220. If an employer fails to satisfy these requirements, and in turn is denied reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits, the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act contains anti-fraud forfeiture provisions as a defense. Cousain v. Smitty's Supply, Inc., 2025-01318 (La. 6/29/26), ___ So.3d ___, 2026 WL 1861950, *3. La. R.S. 23:1208.1 allows for the forfeiture of a claimant's compensation benefits when a falsity was made on an employer's medical questionnaire, before the accident or injury occurred. Id. However, forfeiture is considered a harsh remedy and therefore it must be strictly construed. Alexis v. Alton Ochsner Found. Hosp., 2007-0355, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/29/07), 966 So.2d 673, 676 (citation omitted). For an employee to forfeit workers’ compensation benefits, there must be, “(1) an untruthful statement; (2) prejudice to the employer; and (3) compliance with the notice requirements” of the statute.¹⁴ Lovas v. Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 2018-0801, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/20/19), 267 So.3d 129, 134 (citation omitted). The burden of proving each element rests with the employer. Alexis, 2007-0355, p. 5, 966 So.2d at 676-77. Failure to prove one of the elements of the forfeiture statute is “fatal to an employer's avoidance of liability.” Id. at 677.

In the case sub judice, Nola 1 maintains that it relied on the Medical Questionnaire in which Mr. Lucas answered “no” to having any pre-existing neck and back injuries or diseases. Mr. Lucas testified that he was involved in two motor vehicle accidents before the October 26, 2021 accident, and he admits that he sustained injuries to his neck and back. However, he stated that his injuries resolved and did not prevent or restrict him from performing the physical duties of his job prior to and while working for Nola 1. Mr. Lucas also testified that at the time he completed the Medical Questionnaire, he interpreted the questions as asking whether he was currently “suffering” from a neck or back injury or disease, which led him to answering “no.” He stated that if he thought the question was referring to if “[he] ever had a neck or back injury, [he] would have said ‘yes.’ ” On its face, Mr. Lucas answering “no” to having a prior neck or back injury lends to the statement being untruthful, since he concedes that the two previous motor vehicle accidents caused injuries to his neck and back. However, forfeiture of benefits is not automatic simply by establishing the untruthfulness of Mr. Lucas’ statement. Nola 1 must also establish that the untruthful statement was prejudicial. An employer is prejudiced only when the false statement directly relates to the medical condition referred to in the claim, “or affects the employer's ability to receive reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund.” Lovas, 2018-0801, p. 10, 267 So.3d at 136 (citation omitted). “A direct relation is established when the subsequent injury was inevitable or very likely to occur because of the presence of the pre-existing condition.” Id. (quoting Alexis, 2007-0355, p. 5, 966 So.2d at 677). Nola 1 maintains that it was prejudiced by Mr. Lucas’ failure to disclose his prior neck and back injuries, because without that information, it could not establish that the pre-existing conditions may have merged with the work injury to cause a greater disability. The trial court found that even if Mr. Lucas had disclosed his prior injuries, Nola 1 had not provided sufficient evidence that the untruthful statement affected its ability to receive reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund. Thus, the absence of a pre-existing permanent partial disability and possibility of merger were not present in this case. We agree. The Second Injury Fund recovery specialist, Gary Kern, testified that Nola 1's Second Injury Fund application for reimbursement was denied for the following reasons: (1) there was no evidence that Mr. Lucas had a pre-existing permanent partial disability prior to the subsequent injury; (2) even if there were pre-existing permanent partial disabilities, the injuries would not merge or combine with the subsequent injury; and (3) the subsequent injury was not caused or brought about by the existence of the pre-existing disability.

Dr. Rodriguez and Dr. Katz both agreed that the injuries to Mr. Lucas’ neck and back were a direct cause of the October 26, 2021 work accident and did not merge with his prior injuries. Mr. Lucas’ prior neck and back injuries resolved after receiving medical treatment and did not prevent or restrict him from completing the job duties required by Nola 1. The record reflects that he was not being treated for these prior injuries at the time of the October 26, 2021 work accident. Further, simply because Mr. Lucas previously injured his neck and back did not establish a direct relation to the subsequent injuries from the fall because the event was not inevitable. Without a direct relation between the injuries caused by the fall from the truck to Mr. Lucas’ prior neck and back injuries, Nola 1's allegation of prejudice is not supported by the record. As such, we find no error in the trial court's ruling granting Mr. Lucas’ workers’ compensation benefits.

Penalties and Attorney Fees

Nola 1 asserts in their second assignment of error that the trial court erred in awarding Mr. Lucas penalties and attorney fees. In the September 11, 2025 judgment, the trial court found that Mr. Lucas was entitled to the following: (1) $2,000.00 in penalties and $7,500.00 in attorney fees as a result of Nola 1's failure to timely pay indemnity benefits; and (2) $2,000.00 in penalties and $7,500.00 in attorney fees for Nola 1's failure to authorize medical treatment.

Whether an employer is liable for penalties and attorney fees for failing to timely pay benefits is set forth by statute. La. R.S. 23:1201(I) provides, in pertinent part, that any employer or insurer who arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues the payment of a claim shall be subject to a penalty and reasonable attorney fees. An employer's behavior may be considered arbitrary and capricious if it “consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.” Shubert, 2024-0686, p. 11, 414 So.3d at 900 (citation omitted). This Court has further explained the following:

Courts must evaluate “whether the employer or his insurer engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La. 12/1/98), 721 So. 2d 885, 890. Employers must have “some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.” Id. Stated another way, employers must possess an “articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took action.” Authement [v. Shappert Eng'g], 2002-1631, p. 22, 840 So. 2d [1181,] 1188 (citing Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La. 6/29/99), 737 So.2d 41, 46).

Lentz, 2022-0500, pp. 9-10, 353 So.3d at 1067 (quoting Matthews v. Big Easy Janitorial, L.L.C., 2022-0164, pp. 18-19 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/10/22), 346 So.3d 325, 337).

Nola 1 argues that it should not be held liable for penalties and attorney fees because its legal dispute regarding delay and subsequent termination of workers’ compensation benefits was not frivolous. It further maintains that withholding the benefits was reasonable based on its reliance that Mr. Lucas failed to report his prior injuries, which created a forfeiture issue. Moreover, Nola 1 contends that it relied on the subsequent medical report from Dr. Katz which suggested Mr. Lucas could return to work at full duty and failed to do so.

We find the record does not support Nola 1's argument. Mr. Lucas had several consecutive medical examinations, with multiple doctors who confirmed the diagnosis of his injuries as requiring medical treatment and restricted work duty. For more than a year, Nola 1 withheld and eventually discontinued Mr. Lucas’ indemnity and medical benefits. Nola 1 failed to consider the totality of Mr. Lucas’ multiple medical diagnoses and the continued medical treatment. Its actions were arbitrary and capricious. The trial court did not err in finding Nola 1 unreasonable for withholding Mr. Lucas’ benefits. See Mackel v. U-Haul Co. of La., 2025-0864, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/9/26), 437 So.3d 218, 224 (finding penalties and attorney fees were warranted after the employer discontinued benefits despite findings by multiple doctors that further treatment was necessary). Accordingly, we do not find the trial court was manifestly erroneous in granting penalties and attorney fees.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the September 11, 2025 judgment.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mr. Lucas’ employment with Nola 1 was commission based, with an average of $1,165.00 in weekly compensation.

2.   On the Medical Questionnaire, Mr. Lucas replied “yes” to having hypertension and listed that he “take[s] medication to prevent high blood pressure.”

3.   Concentra is the designated clinic used by Nola 1 for its employees’ work-related injuries.

4.   The light duty restrictions recommended by Concentra included limited bending, standing, walking and no driving.

5.   Mr. Lucas was also assigned an assistant to help him with his work duties.

6.   As a result, Concentra recommended that Mr. Lucas’ duties be further restricted to not lifting anything over ten pounds, with only occasional bending and core rotation.

7.   The orthopedic hip specialist, Dr. Robert Bostick, diagnosed Mr. Lucas with left hip impingement syndrome and restricted him to sedentary duty. Dr. Bostick also related Mr. Lucas’ injuries, treatment and restrictions to the October 26, 2021 work accident.

8.   Nola 1 filed a motion to compel an independent medical examination by Dr. Katz after Mr. Lucas refused. However, Mr. Lucas consented to the examination before a hearing.

9.   The Second Injury Fund protects employers from excess liability for compensation and medical expenses by reimbursing employers for additional benefits paid due to an employee's subsequent injury. La. R.S. 23:1371, et seq.

10.   Nola 1 began paying Mr. Lucas indemnity benefits on July 18, 2023, retroactive to December 4, 2021, at a weekly compensation rate of $763.00. It also made medical benefit payments for Mr. Lucas between January 5, 2022 to February 10, 2025, in a total amount of $18,386.36.

11.   In the denial letter, the Second Injury Fund cited to La. R.S. 23:1378(A), La. R.S. 23:1378(F) and La. R.S. 23:1371(C) for its reasoning.

12.   Following Mr. Lucas’ motion for a new trial, both parties agreed to correct the calculation for his indemnity benefits. In the September 11, 2025 amended judgment, using the corrected calculation, the total amount of indemnity benefits that Nola 1 owed to Mr. Lucas increased from $56,542.30 to $65,606.90, with a continued weekly payment of $743.00.

13.   La. R.S. 23:1208.1 provides:Nothing in this Title shall prohibit an employer from inquiring about previous injuries, disabilities, or other medical conditions and the employee shall answer truthfully; failure to answer truthfully shall result in the employee's forfeiture of benefits under this Chapter, provided said failure to answer directly relates to the medical condition for which a claim for benefits is made or affects the employer's ability to receive reimbursement from the second injury fund. This Section shall not be enforceable unless the written form on which the inquiries about previous medical conditions are made contains a notice advising the employee that his failure to answer truthfully may result in his forfeiture of worker's compensation benefits under La. R.S. 23:1208.1. Such notice shall be prominently displayed in bold faced block lettering of no less than ten point type.

14.   The parties do not contest the notice requirements of the statute. Therefore, we do not address this element.

Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase