ALPHONSO v. EXXON MOBIL (2021)

Writ application denied.

It is well settled that La. R.S. 23:1201 provides for the mandatory imposition of penalties and attorney's fees in the Workers’ Compensation Act for failure to timely pay benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. “[T]o determine whether the claimant's right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain 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. Furthermore, “[u]nreasonably controverting a claim ․ requires action of a less egregious nature than that required for arbitrary and capricious behavior.” Id.

Awards of penalties and attorney's fees in workers’ compensation cases are penal in nature, being imposed to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers, Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers, 97-0110 (La. 7/1/97), 696 So.2d 1382. These penal statutes are to be strictly construed. International Harvester Credit v. Seale, 518 So.2d 1039, 1041 (La. 1988). See also Iberia Medical Center v. Ward, 09-2705 (La. 11/30/10), 53 So.3d 421; and Zinn v. Zagis, 20-0971 (La. 12/22/20), 307 So.3d 193 (Crichton, J., dissenting, finding penalties not warranted where claimant's counsel intentionally delayed notifying defendant of objectionable conditions from a timely issued settlement and compromise).

With these precepts in mind, in my view, I find defendant in this matter reasonably controverted the claim that the plaintiff's second knee injury was allegedly a result of his original work-related injury. This was not a frivolous legal dispute as to the alleged causal connection between the original injury (for which Exxon paid full and timely benefits and expenses) and plaintiff's second at-home injury. Accordingly, I find the workers’ compensation judge erred in awarding penalties and attorney's fees in this matter and would reverse that ruling in that regard.

Crichton, J., would grant in part and assigns reasons.