Mouton v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office
| Decision Date | 15 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–1411.,13–1411. |
| Citation | 158 So.3d 833 |
| Parties | Todd MOUTON v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Todd MOUTON
v.
LAFAYETTE PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
No. 13–1411.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
May 7, 2014
Opinion on Rehearing Oct. 15, 2014
Affirmed.
[158 So.3d 834]
Mark L. Riley, Glenn Armentor Corp., Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant Todd Mouton.
James D. Hollier, Philip Henry Boudreaux, Jr., NeunerPate, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant/Appellee Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office.
Court composed of ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, SHANNON J. GREMILLION, and PHYLLIS M. KEATY, Judges. PICKETT, Judge.
Todd Mouton appeals the judgment of the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) upholding the determination of the Medical Director denying treatment. The Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office (LPSO) has filed a Motion to Remand.
The accident at issue occurred in 2001 when Mouton was employed by the LPSO. LPSO sought a determination from the Medical Director seeking to terminate weekly massage therapy for Lt. Mouton. Lt. Mouton contested the denial of treatment. When the Medical Director denied treatment, Lt. Mouton filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation asking that the Medical Director be overruled.
Whether the procedure requiring review by the Medical Director should have been employed in this case is an open question in light of this court's en banc decision in Romero v. Garan's, Inc., 13–482 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/26/13), 130 So.3d 451, and the pending decision of the Supreme Court in Cook v. Family Care Services, Inc., 13–108 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/28/13), 121 So.3d 1274, writ granted, 13–2326 (La.1/17/14), 130 So.3d 332 (argued before the Supreme Court on March 25, 2014). This case however, is complicated by an additional fact. Both parties in their briefs admit that a stipulation exists whereby the new guidelines and procedure would be utilized even though the injury occurred many years before the amendment of the statute. This stipulation is not included in the record before us and was not presented to the WCJ. LPSO filed their Motion to Remand to supplement the record with this agreement.
We hereby grant the Motion to Remand. On remand, the WCJ is instructed to consider the stipulation entered into between the parties, as well as the potential effect of the evolving jurisprudence.
MOTION TO REMAND GRANTED.
Lieutenant Todd Mouton appeals the judgment of the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) upholding the determination of the Medical Director denying treatment. The Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office (LPSO) has filed a Motion to Remand.
[158 So.3d 835]
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mouton was injured in a workplace accident in 2001. Mouton has retired from the LPSO, but continues to work as a private investigator. He has received medical benefits for pain management since the accident. LPSO asked that the Medical Director terminate Mouton's weekly physical therapy/massage therapy. Mouton contested LPSO's request. After the Medical Director denied this treatment, Mouton filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation asking that the WCJ overrule the Medical Director.
In our original opinion, we remanded to the WCJ for a determination of whether the Medical Director procedure should have been employed in this case. See Mouton v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Off., 13–1411 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/14), 158 So.3d 833. On the same day, the supreme court issued its opinion in Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dardar, 13–2351, p. 24 (La.5/7/14), 145 So.3d 271, 287–88, holding that the medical treatment guidelines and Medical Director procedures outlined in La.R.S. 23:1203.1 are procedural and “appl[y] prospectively to all requests for medical treatment and/or disputes arising out of requests for medical treatment arising after the effective date of La. R.S. 23:1203.1 and the medical treatment schedule, regardless of the date of accident.” We granted Mouton's application for rehearing to consider the merits of this case.
Mouton asserts one assignment of error:
The trial court erred in upholding the decision of the Medical Director to deny physical therapy, which the history of Lt. Mouton's treatment and Dr. Rees' request clearly shows is necessary to maintain Lt. Mouton's level of function.
The first issue we must decide is what standard of review to apply. In two recent cases issued on the same date, the same panel of this court came to different conclusions about the appropriate standard of review. In Vital v. Landmark of Lake Charles, 13–842 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1017, 2014 WL 550912, Judge Gremillion wrote an opinion concluding that the determination of the WCJ was necessarily fact-intensive, so the manifest error standard of review applied. In Moran v. Cajun Well Services, Inc., 13–821 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1086, 2014 WL 551250, Judge Painter concluded that there was no independent finding of fact by the WCJ. Concluding that the decision to affirm or reverse the finding of the WCJ was a question of law, the court conducted a de novo review. In both cases,...
To continue reading
Request your trial