Brooks v. Chicola
| Decision Date | 08 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1215.,85-1215. |
| Citation | 503 So.2d 1086 |
| Parties | Edward BROOKS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. A.J. CHICOLA, et al, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Fuhrer, Flournoy and Hunter, George A. Flournoy, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee.
Watson, Murchison, Steven D. Crews, Brittain, Williams, Joe P. Williams, Gahagan and Gahagan, Marvin E. Gahagan, Natchitoches, Stafford, Stewart, Potter Paul Boudreaux, Jr., Alexandria, for defendants-appellants.
Before DOMENGEAUX, C.J., and FORET, STOKER, LABORDE and YELVERTON, JJ.
Plaintiff, Edward Brooks, Jr., was injured while working for Natchitoches Warehouse and Compress, Inc., when a cotton bale fell from the top of a truck and landed on him. Following the accident, plaintiff received worker's compensation benefits from Natchitoches Warehouse and Compress' worker's compensation insurer, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. Brooks filed the present action against A.J. Chicola d/b/a Chicola Moving & Storage, the hauler of the dropped cotton bale. Fireman's and Natchitoches Warehouse and Compress intervened in the suit, demanding recovery of worker's compensation benefits already paid to plaintiff and a credit for those to be paid in the future. Plaintiff then filed a supplemental and amending petition which substituted Daniel Chicola for the previously incorrectly named defendant, A.J. Chicola. Plaintiff also subsequently named Ronald Chicola, John Guillot, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and Guaranty National Insurance Company as defendants.
The issue presented by this case is whether a worker's compensation intervenor seeking reimbursement for weekly compensation benefits it has paid to an injured worker is only entitled to be reimbursed out of the sum awarded to the injured worker for past lost wages and not out of the damages which the worker received for pain and suffering.
At the start of trial, the parties stipulated that plaintiff's medical expenses were $13,249.42, and that that amount would be added on to the total jury award. Thus, the amount of medical benefits was removed as an issue at trial. The issue of weekly disability benefits was a different matter. It was stipulated that, as of the date of trial, Fireman's had paid $26,724.00 in weekly disability benefits. The parties agreed to submit the question of plaintiff's past loss of earnings to the jury but to leave the question of the amount of reimbursement due Fireman's to the trial judge.
Using special interrogatories, the jury returned damages in the following amounts:
A. Past physical pain and suffering_ $ 7,000.00
B. Future physical pain and
suffering_________________________ 30,000.00
C. Past mental anguish____________ 5,000.00
D. Future mental anguish__________ 2,500.00
E. Loss of enjoyment of life and
disability___________________ ___________
F. Past loss of earnings__________ 15,000.00
G. Future loss of earnings________ 65,000.00
As can be seen, the amount awarded by the jury for past loss of earnings ($15,000.00) is $11,724.00 less than the amount Fireman's had paid in weekly disability benefits ($26,724.00). The trial court, after considering arguments of counsel, decided that Fireman's was entitled to reimbursement for weekly compensation benefits paid only up to the amount awarded for past loss of earnings. Thus, $15,000.00 was added to the stipulated amount of medical expenses ($13,249.42), and judgment was rendered in favor of Fireman's for $28,249.42. The trial court further ordered that upon payment to plaintiff of the award of future lost earnings ($65,000.00), the liability of Fireman's for future weekly benefits would cease for such part of the compensation due, computed at 6% per annum, and would be satisfied by such payment until the award of $65,000.00 was consumed.
Intervenors contend that the trial court erred when it limited their reimbursement for worker's compensation benefits to the sum the jury awarded plaintiff for his past loss of wages. Intervenors argue that they were entitled to be reimbursed not only out of the sum awarded plaintiff for past loss of wages, but also out of the sum he received for pain and suffering. Intervenors maintain that LSA-R.S. 23:11031 contemplates a preference for past weekly benefits paid on all amounts awarded to plaintiff and not limited to the portion of the award designated for past loss of earnings. In support of this contention, intervenors cite our case of Stewart v. Hanover Insurance Company, 416 So.2d 286 (La. App. 3 Cir.1982), writ denied, 421 So.2d 907 (La.1982). In Stewart, we held that an intervenor was entitled to be reimbursed for weekly benefits it had paid to an injured employee out of any award to that employee whether for pain and suffering, lost wages, or general damages. In opposition, plaintiff has argued that weekly compensation benefits paid are recoverable only to the extent of the award for past loss of earnings; otherwise, the worker's compensation carrier would be reimbursed from the employee's award for items which the employee, himself, had not recovered from the third party tort-feasor. In support of this position, plaintiff cites Fontenot v. Hanover Insurance Co., 385 So.2d 238 (La.1980). However, in Stewart, decided after the Fontenot case, we pointed out that the intervenor in Fontenot was seeking reimbursement for medical expenses and not for weekly benefits it had paid. The court's holding in Fontenot () was not applicable to a case in which the employer sought reimbursement for weekly benefits it had paid.
Although plaintiff admits that Fontenot is distinguishable from the situation which we now have before us and which we faced in Stewart, he argues that Fontenot`s rationale is inconsistent with our holding in Stewart. He points out that the court in Fontenot reasoned that the underlying policy of the apportionment scheme for reimbursing an employer was merely that the employee should not be compensated doubly for the same element of his damages. Plaintiff argues that there would be no double recovery if intervenors' recovery was limited to the sum the jury awarded in past lost wages. We disagree. Unlike medical expenses, weekly worker's compensation benefits are paid, in part at least, in lieu of recovery for pain and suffering. If plaintiff was not required to reimburse intervenors out of the sum he recovered for pain and suffering, he would be receiving double recovery, at least insofar as weekly benefits are paid to compensate for pain and suffering. The possibility of double recovery is avoided only if the intervenor may seek reimbursement of weekly benefits out of an employee's award for pain and suffering. In their treatise on workers' compensation, Malone and Johnson apparently reach the same conclusion.
We think that our decision in Stewart was correct. We agree with intervenors that LSA-R.S. 23:1103 unambiguously grants the employer a preference over all damages recovered for the compensation it has actually paid. Plaintiff has cited LaGraize v. Bickham, 391 So.2d 1185 (La. App. 4 Cir.1980), for the proposition that reimbursement for weekly benefits paid should be limited to the amount an injured employee receives for loss of past wages. Plaintiff's reliance on LaGraize is misplaced. Our understanding of that case is that there the intervenor had paid no past weekly benefits to the plaintiff and, therefore, reimbursement of such payments was not at issue.2
Intervenors also contend that the trial court erred in finding that the credit to which intervenors were entitled for future compensation was limited to the amount which the jury awarded plaintiff for loss of future earnings, i.e., $65,000.00. Intervenors maintain that they are entitled to a credit on the future compensation they may owe in an amount equal to plaintiff's recovery, and that this amount should not be limited to the amount recovered by plaintiff for loss of future earnings. In support of this position, intervenors cite our case of Billeaud v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 349 So.2d 1379 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977). In Billeaud, we held that a worker's compensation intervenor should be given a credit on all sums it may come to owe in the future to, or on behalf of, the injured party, up to the extent of payment of the tort recovery to that party; and until this excess is exhausted, the intervenor should be obligated to make no further compensation payments or medical benefits. In light of Fontenot, we believe that intervenor remains liable for future medical benefits and is entitled to no credit in this regard. However, as to weekly compensation benefits we believe that our decision in Billeaud was correct. As to their obligation to pay these benefits, intervenors are entitled to a credit equal to the entire amount of plaintiff's tort recovery, less the amount reimbursed to intervenors until this excess is exhausted.
DECREEFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is amended in the following respects:
(1) The sum of the judgment in favor of intervenor, FIREMAN'S...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strain v. Mitchell Mfg. Co.
...party tortfeasor." The distinction between weekly worker's compensation benefits and medical expenses was drawn in Brooks v. Chicola, 503 So.2d 1086 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987). "Unlike medical expenses, weekly worker's compensation benefits are paid, in part at least, in lieu of recovery for pain......
-
Brooks v. Chicola, 87-C-0752
...third circuit, however, has expressly declined in this case to follow the second circuit's holding in Price. Brooks v. Chicola, 503 So.2d 1086, at 1089, fn. 2 (La.App.3d Cir.1987). The court an intervenor [is] entitled to be reimbursed for weekly benefits it [has] paid to an injured employe......
- Brooks v. Chicola, 87-C-0752