Summary
This Louisiana workers’ compensation appeal concerns whether Daphne Reissland was a part-time or full-time employee, whether she forfeited benefits by making willful misrepresentations under La. R.S. 23:1208, and the calculation of restitution and related penalties. The Fourth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, remanded with instructions, and denied Valluzzo Companies, LLC’s answer to the appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the WCJ manifestly erred in finding that Reissland willfully made false statements for the purpose of obtaining workers' compensation benefits under La. R.S. 23:1208 and therefore forfeited her benefits.
- Whether the restitution judgment entered under La. R.S. 23:1208 should be vacated after reversal of the statutory-forfeiture finding.
- Whether Reissland was properly classified as a part-time employee under La. R.S. 23:1021(11), or whether her benefits had to be calculated using the forty-hour presumption in La. R.S. 23:1021(13)(a)(i).
- Whether Reissland was entitled to penalties and attorney fees for Valluzzo's failure to reasonably controvert the calculation of her benefits and for the termination of benefits.
- Whether Reissland was entitled to costs under La. R.S. 23:1310.9 and judicial interest on penalties and attorney fees.
- Whether Valluzzo was entitled to additional restitution-related fees, costs, penalties, interest, or frivolous-appeal damages.
Holdings
- The WCJ erred in finding that Reissland violated La. R.S. 23:1208 and forfeited her workers' compensation benefits because the WCJ failed to consider whether the alleged misstatements were inadvertent or inconsequential, including whether they affected the medical providers' opinions.
- The January 13, 2025 restitution judgment, including the civil penalty, had to be vacated because it was based on the reversed finding that Reissland violated La. R.S. 23:1208.
- Reissland could not be treated as a part-time employee because Valluzzo did not prove that she knowingly accepted employment customarily providing fewer than forty hours per week and classified by the employer as part-time at the time of hiring.
- Valluzzo lost the safe-harbor protection from penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201.1(K)(2) because it failed to provide the company handbook within ten days after requesting a preliminary determination hearing, as required by La. R.S. 23:1201.1(J)(4).
- Reissland was not entitled to penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(I) because Valluzzo had an articulable and objective reason for terminating benefits after Reissland revoked all prior medical-record authorizations.
- Valluzzo failed to reasonably controvert Reissland's claim that her benefits should have been calculated using full-time status, so the matter had to be remanded for the WCJ to determine and assess the penalty and reasonable attorney fees authorized by La. R.S. 23:1201(F).
- Reissland was entitled to judicial interest on the penalty and attorney fees to be assessed under La. R.S. 23:1201(F), beginning on the date of judgment rather than the date compensation was due.
- Reissland was not entitled to cost reimbursement under La. R.S. 23:1310.9 because the WCJ did not determine that the proceedings were brought on unreasonable grounds or that Valluzzo denied benefits on unreasonable grounds.
- Valluzzo's requests for additional restitution-related relief were moot or abandoned, and its request for appellate costs, expenses, and attorney fees was denied because Reissland's appeal was not frivolous.
Key quotations
“Statutory forfeiture is a harsh remedy and must be strictly construed.” (17)
“it was incumbent upon Valluzzo—as the employer—to define the “part-time” status of Ms. Reissland and to establish some procedure to satisfy the criterion that she knowingly accepted part-time employment.” (23)
“Based on the facts of this case, we find Valluzzo’s decision to terminate Ms. Reissland’s benefits—in the face of a lack of access to her medical records regarding treatment related to the alleged accident and injury forming the basis of her claim—did not rise to the level of arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.” (32)
“Because awards of penalties and attorney’s fees are not automatic . . ., they come due, if at all, only on the date of their award . . .; thus, such awards may not earn interest until after that date.” (39)
Factual background
Reissland injured her left hip and lower back while lifting a heavy garbage bag during her work at a McDonald's operated by Valluzzo on May 4, 2023. Valluzzo initially paid temporary total disability benefits but later terminated them after Reissland revoked medical-record authorizations and after medical records revealed prior back complaints inconsistent with portions of her testimony. The WCJ found that Reissland sustained a compensable accident and injury but also made false statements for the purpose of obtaining benefits, and classified her as a part-time employee for benefit-calculation purposes.
Procedural history
The Office of Workers' Compensation, District 7, held a merits trial on October 16, 2024, and entered a judgment on December 5, 2024, finding that Reissland sustained a work-related accident and injury, was a part-time employee, and violated La. R.S. 23:1208. After a restitution hearing, the WCJ entered a January 13, 2025 judgment ordering restitution of indemnity and medical benefits, investigation and litigation costs, and a civil penalty. The Fourth Circuit reversed the statutory-forfeiture ruling in part, vacated the restitution judgment, reversed the part-time classification, remanded for recalculation of benefits and assessment of any applicable penalty and attorney fees, and denied Valluzzo's answer.
Remand instructions
The WCJ must recalculate Reissland's indemnity benefits under the forty-hour presumption in La. R.S. 23:1021(13)(a)(i), rather than treating her as a part-time employee. The WCJ must determine and assess any penalty and reasonable attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(F) based on Valluzzo's failure to reasonably controvert the full-time classification and must apply judicial interest to those awards from the date they are awarded. The January 13, 2025 restitution and civil-penalty judgment is vacated.