Summary
The Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether an Office of Workers’ Compensation hearing officer could require a vocational rehabilitation counselor to comply with conditions proposed by the claimant before providing services. The court held that such conditions could not be imposed prophylactically absent an evidentiary showing that they were reasonably necessary to resolve or rectify an actual dispute concerning the counselor’s work under La. Rev. Stat. 23:1226(B)(3)(a). The court reversed the lower courts and remanded the matter.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Office of Workers' Compensation hearing officer may require an employer-selected vocational rehabilitation counselor to agree to claimant-proposed conditions before commencing or continuing vocational rehabilitation services.
- Whether La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1226(B)(3)(a) requires an evidentiary showing of an actual dispute concerning the counselor's work or the quality or necessity of services before such conditions may be imposed.
Holdings
- A vocational rehabilitation counselor may not be required to agree to the Crain Brothers conditions, or other conditions, before commencing or continuing services absent an evidentiary showing that the conditions are reasonably necessary to resolve or rectify an actual dispute concerning the counselor's work.
- The conditions were not shown to be reasonable or necessary because the claimant presented no admissible evidence of an actual dispute concerning the rehabilitation services or their quality.
Key quotations
“we hold the hearing officer erred in imposing these conditions ostensibly as a prophylactic measure without an evidentiary showing that any of the imposed conditions were reasonably necessary to resolve or rectify a “dispute ... concerning the work of the vocational counselor” as provided in La.Rev.Stat. 23:1226(B)(3)(a).” (787)
“Certainly absent any showing by the claimant that there is an actual dispute as to the provision of services or the quality thereof, requiring the counselor to abide by such conditions, even if intended as a prophylactic measure, necessarily resorts to speculation and conjecture as to the future actions of the counselor.” (793)
Factual background
Ellis Hargrave, a Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development employee, suffered a work-related injury requiring lumbar surgery and was awarded temporary total disability benefits. DOTD arranged vocational rehabilitation through licensed counselors, but Hargrave's counsel prevented or conditioned meetings with the counselors unless they agreed to ten Crain Brothers conditions. The OWC hearing officer found all ten conditions reasonable and ordered rehabilitation to proceed under them, and the court of appeal removed only one condition.
Procedural history
After Hargrave prevailed in workers' compensation proceedings, DOTD provided vocational rehabilitation services through successive counselors. Hargrave's counsel conditioned further services on the counselor's agreement to the ten conditions adopted in Crain Brothers. The Office of Workers' Compensation hearing officer imposed the conditions; the court of appeal amended the ruling only to remove one condition. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted DOTD's writ application, reversed the lower courts, and remanded to the OWC.
Remand instructions
Remanded to the Office of Workers' Compensation for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.