Dana Cormier v. SWLA Center for Health Services and Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corporation

Summary

The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal reviews a workers’ compensation judgment dismissing Dana Cormier’s claim arising from alleged natural-gas exposure at her workplace. The court finds manifest error in the workers’ compensation judge’s conclusion that no gas-related accident occurred and addresses whether the exposure aggravated or contributed to Cormier’s neurological condition despite her pre-existing seizure history. The judgment is reversed and rendered.

Holdings

1. The evidence established that Cormier was exposed to gas fumes or a toxic-like odor in the course and scope of her employment on November 2, 2022; the workers’ compensation judge manifestly erred in finding otherwise.
2. Cormier established that her workplace exposure caused or contributed to her continuing neurological disability and was entitled to the Housley presumption of causation despite her preexisting seizure condition.
3. Cormier was entitled to temporary total disability benefits, future temporary total disability benefits while disabled, all necessary past medical expenses, and future necessary medical treatment.
4. The challenge to the admission of Dr. Segura’s uncertified opinion letter was moot because the workers’ compensation judge stated that he did not review or rely on the letter in deciding the case.
5. Defendants did not reasonably controvert Cormier’s claim and were liable for $8,000 in statutory penalties, $27,660 in trial-level attorney fees, and $7,500 in appellate attorney fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the workers’ compensation judge manifestly erred in finding that no gas or toxic substance was present in the workplace and that no compensable workplace accident occurred.
2. Whether Cormier proved a causal connection between the workplace exposure and her continuing neurological disability despite her preexisting seizure disorder.
3. Whether the workers’ compensation judge improperly evaluated the medical and expert evidence, including Dr. Odenheimer’s testimony and the defendant’s uncertified opinion letter.
4. Whether Cormier was entitled to temporary total disability benefits and necessary medical expenses.
5. Whether defendants reasonably controverted the claim and therefore avoided statutory penalties and attorney fees.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded