Hoti, Inc. v. Hart

• Decision Date: 05 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. WCA 13–1243.,WCA 13–1243.
• Citation: 134 So.3d 245
• Parties: HOTI, INC. v. Jason HART.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

134 So.3d 245

HOTI, INC.
v.
Jason HART.

No. WCA 13–1243.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana,
Third Circuit.

March 5, 2014.

[134 So.3d 246]

Eric J. Waltner, Allen & Gooch, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee: HOTI, Inc.

Robert L. Beck, III, Law Offices of Robert L. Beck, Alexandria, LA, for Defendant/Appellant: Jason Hart.

Court composed of JIMMIE C. PETERS, BILLY HOWARD EZELL, and SHANNON J. GREMILLION, Judges.

EZELL, Judge.

Jason Hart appeals the decision of the workers' compensation judge granting an exception of no cause of action in favor of his employer, HOTI, Inc. and its insurer, The Gray Insurance Company (collectively referred to as “HOTI”). For the following reasons, we hereby reverse the decision of the workers' compensation judge and remand this case for further proceedings.

The preliminary facts of this case were discussed in its companion case before this court, Hart v. Highlines Const. Co., Inc., 13–624, pp. 1–2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 127 So.3d 1053, 1053–54, (footnote omitted) (alteration in original).

The facts in this matter are not in dispute. The claimant, Jason Hart, was injured on November 12, 2007, when he came in contact with a live electrical line while working for HOTI, Inc. Thereafter, The Gray Insurance Company, HOTI's workers' compensation insurer, began paying Hart weekly indemnity benefits. On February 22, 2010, Hart was incarcerated following a parole violation. Several months later, Gray ceased paying Hart indemnity benefits pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201.4.

Hart filed a Form 1008 Disputed Claim for Compensation (1008) against HOTI and Gray (hereafter appellees) on February 25, 2013, wherein he listed as the bona fide dispute that his “[e]ntitlement to receive medical benefits has not been established.” In response, the appellees filed an exception of prematurity and no cause of action and/or right of action. Before the exceptions came up for hearing, Hart filed a first supplemental and amending 1008 and a second supplemental and amending 1008 in which he claimed that the appellees had failed to authorize his evaluation by Dr. Gerald Leglue, Jr. and to approve additional vocational rehabilitation. Hart

[134 So.3d 247]

sought penalties and attorney fees in both supplemental 1008s. While the appellees did not object to Hart's filing of the two supplemental petitions, they did assert their exceptions as to the petitions.

Following a contradictory hearing, the WCJ sustained the exceptions and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

On June 19, 2013, while the previously-mentioned case was before this court on appeal, HOTI itself filed a 1008 disputed claim for compensation, directly challenging Mr. Hart's disability status. Mr. Hart filed an answer and reconventional demand, alleging that, since he had a minor dependent who relied on his workers' compensation benefits for support, his rights to those benefits were not forfeited under La.R.S. 23:1201.4.¹ He further alleged his entitlement to an examination by a physician to prove disability in the face of HOTI's 1008.

HOTI again filed exceptions of no right and cause of action, prematurity, and res judicata. After hearing these exceptions, the workers' compensation judge again sustained HOTI's exception of no cause of action. From that decision, Mr. Hart appeals.

Mr. Hart asserts one assignment of error on appeal, that the workers' compensation judge erred in holding that he did not have a cause of action to be examined by a physician in the face of HOTI's challenge to his disability status. We agree with Mr. Hart.

The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the standard of review of the sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action in Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07–478, p. 2 (La.10/16/07), 967 So.2d 1137, 1138 (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01–987 (La.11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 348–49) as follows (alteration in original):

The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. The peremptory exception of no cause of action is designed to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether [the] plaintiff is afforded a remedy in law based on the facts alleged in the pleading. No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. The exception is triable on the face of the papers and for the purposes of determining the issues raised by the exception, the...