Guidroz v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | WCA 21-777 |
| Citation | 339 So.3d 647 |
| Parties | Michelle GUIDROZ v. WALMART STORES, INC. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
339 So.3d 647
Michelle GUIDROZ
v.
WALMART STORES, INC.
WCA 21-777
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
May 4, 2022
Robert L. Beck III, W. Jay Luneau, Sara B. Dantzler, LUNEAU & BECK, LLC, 5208 Jackson Street Extension, Suite A, Alexandria, Louisiana 71303, (318) 445-6581, COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT/APPELLEE: Michelle Guidroz
Corey M. Meaux, PARKER & LANDRY, LLC, 4023 Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Suite 320, Lafayette, Louisiana 70503, (337) 362-1603, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Walmart Inc.
Court composed of John E. Conery, Van H. Kyzar, and Sharon Darville Wilson, Judges.
WILSON, Judge.
The employer, Walmart, Inc.1 (Walmart), appeals the ruling of the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) in favor of the injured employee, Michelle Guidroz (Guidroz). The ruling reinstated Guidroz's benefits and awarded penalties and attorneys’ fees to her. Guidroz filed an answer to the appeal, seeking an additional penalty of $8,000.00 under La.R.S. 23:1201(I), based upon her allegation that Walmart's actions went beyond unreasonable and rose to the level of arbitrary and capricious. Guidroz also requests an increase in attorneys’ fees for work done on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment in its entirety and award an additional $2,500.00 in attorneys’ fees for work done appeal.
I.
ISSUES
We must decide:
1. Whether the trial court committed legal error by allegedly improperly interpreting and/or applying Banks v. Indus. Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. , 96-2840 (La. 7/1/97), 696 So.2d 551.
2. Whether the trial court committed legal and/or manifest error when it allegedly failed to accept uncontradicted, expert, medical evidence.
3. Whether the trial court erred by concluding that Walmart failed to establish a work capacity for Guidroz.
4. Whether the trial court erred by awarding penalties and attorneys’ fees to Guidroz.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Guidroz was employed by Walmart in its Oakdale, Louisiana store as a bakery manager.2 On June 13, 2016, Guidroz injured her right knee when she fell from a ladder. The parties stipulated that Guidroz was in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident. Guidroz was unable to return to work in her previous capacity at Walmart following knee surgery performed by Dr. Michael Leddy on December 1, 2016. The parties also stipulated that the amount of Guidroz's average weekly wage was $652.73, making her corresponding workers’ compensation rate $435.15 per week.
On January 21, 2018, Guidroz underwent an IME performed by Dr. Thomas Butand, who concluded that Guidroz "is capable of performing work with her right knee." Dr. Butand stated that he thought "that she is probably at a light to moderate duty status" and recommended "that an FCE be obtained prior to making a final disposition on the type of work she can do." On April 9, 2019, an FCE was performed at Rosewood Rehabilitation, LLC, with the conclusion that Guidroz could perform within the light duty physical demand category. Guidroz's treating physician, Dr. Leddy, agreed.
On July 31, 2019, Guidroz was interviewed by Samantha Williamson, a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Williamson identified four jobs that fit within Guidroz's work restrictions:
1. Administrative Assistant at Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, which required computer skills, the ability to operate a multiline phone system, ability to answer correspondence, make travel arrangements, and organize and maintain a filing system;
2. PBX Operator at Coushatta Casino Resort, which required computer skills;
3. Customer Service Representative at Cash 2 U Payday Loan, which required computer skills and the ability to process tax returns, maintain a cash drawer, and comply with State and Federal law as well as company policies and procedures; and
4. Customer Service Representative at Security Finance, which required computer skills and the ability to process tax returns, maintain a cash drawer, and comply with State and Federal law as well as company policies and procedures.
Williamson listed the following transferrable occupations which were considered feasible for Guidroz: (1) deli/bakery supervisor, (2) baker, (3) prep cook, (4) food service worker, and (5) dietary worker.
On March 20, 2020, Guidroz filed a disputed claim for compensation. Guidroz claims that she was paid $435.15 per week from the date of the accident until February 18, 2020, when the amount was reduced to $68.49 per week. Although the February 18, 2020 notification of modification stated that the effective date of the reduction was stated to be December 19, 2020, Walmart immediately reduced the amount.
Following a trial on the merits, which took place on August 11, 2021, the WCJ signed a judgment with written reasons, which made the following findings.
1. On January 8, 2020, Guidroz was notified of two job positions, which were available but had not been approved by her treating physician at that time.3 The WCJ further found that "whether a job is suitable is contingent on the employee being physically capable of performing, and must also fall within the limits of the employee's education and marketable skills, the latter of which may be gained through on-the-job training."
2. Due to Guidroz's limited education,4 although the jobs identified by
Walmart fell within Guidroz's physical capabilities, she did not have the requisite aptitude or any transferable skills to independently perform or be successfully trained for any of the jobs suggested by Walmart.
3. Modification of benefits was not warranted because Walmart did not establish a work capacity for Guidroz through vocational rehabilitation.
The judgment ordered that indemnity benefits be reinstated retroactive to the February 18, 2020 modification and continued until such time that Guidroz is no longer disabled. The judgment also awarded $2,000 in penalties and $10,000 in attorneys’ fees.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review." Banks , 696 So.2d at 556. "[T]he issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one." Stobart v. State through Dep't of Transp. & Dev ., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993). "Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong." Rosell v. ESCO , 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). "[I]f the [factfinder's] findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently." Sistler v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1112 (La.1990).
"[W]hen legal error interdicts the fact-finding process in a worker's compensation case, the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review no longer applies and de novo review of the matter is required." Gaines v. Home Care Solutions, LLC , 15-895, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/6/16), 192 So.3d 794, 801 (citing Marti v. City of New Orleans , 12-1514 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 541 ), writ denied , 16-847...
To continue reading
Request your trial