RAVEN GOTTE JR v. AIR CONDUIT LLC AND AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY (2022)

Applicant refused to cooperate with his vocational rehabilitative services counselor as the counselor's hiring by the Respondent necessarily presented a conflict of interest. While apparent, it is a conflict that the legislature has expressly allowed. Further, even though the counselor's attendance at Applicant's doctors’ visits violated La. R.S. 23:1127(D), his remedy was to file a claim with the Office of Worker's Compensation. See La. R.S. 23:1226(B)(3)(a).

While I concur in the denial of the writ, this area of the law warrants legislative reform. See Hargrave v. State, 12-0341 (La. 10/16/12), 100 So.3d 786, 794-796 (Knoll, J. concurring). Currently, employers have unfettered discretion in selecting counselors who are required to provide the best services to employees yet are still beholden to employers. While the statute requires these counselors to maintain certain ethical standards under La. R.S. 23:1226(A), these standards in no way cure the inherent conflict of interest present. Hargrave, supra. Absent legislative action, the current statutory scheme will continue to undermine the quid pro quo underlying the Workers Compensation Act.

GRIFFIN J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.