OWC hearing in Louisiana

1993In Long, 595 So.2d at 639 , the Supreme Court declared: ... [T]he intent of the legislature was that the constitutional amendment would validate Act 938’s provisions for exclusive original jurisdiction of worker’s compensation claims in the OWC hearing officer system, which had been temporarily suspended.

1993In Long, 595 So.2d at 639 , the Supreme Court declared: ... [T]he intent of the legislature was that the constitutional amendment would validate Act 938’s provisions for exclusive original jurisdiction of worker’s compensation claims in the OWC hearing officer system, which had been temporarily suspended.

2019Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So. 2d 880 , 882 La. 1993 ).

2019Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So. 2d 880 , 882 La. 1993 ).

2019Hargrave , 100 So.3d at 793 .

2019Hargrave , 100 So.3d at 793 .

2018Id.

2018This credibility determination is entitled to great weight because the trier of fact "is in a superior position to observe the nuances of demeanor evidence not revealed in a record." In re A.J.F. , 2000-0948, p. 26 (La. 6/30/00), 764 So.2d 47 , 62.

2018This credibility determination is entitled to great weight because the trier of fact "is in a superior position to observe the nuances of demeanor evidence not revealed in a record." In re A.J.F. , 2000-0948, p. 26 (La. 6/30/00), 764 So.2d 47 , 62.

2017Additionally, in Ward , 53 So.3d 421 , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the OWC hearing officer "was not clearly wrong in determining Ms. Ward proved by a preponderance of the evidence" that Ms. Ward sustained an injury to her hand while moving a food cart, while working for Iberia Medical Center as a relief food service worker.

2017Additionally, in Ward , 53 So.3d 421 , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the OWC hearing officer "was not clearly wrong in determining Ms. Ward proved by a preponderance of the evidence" that Ms. Ward sustained an injury to her hand while moving a food cart, while working for Iberia Medical Center as a relief food service worker.

2016With respect to the cost of the nonemer-gency treatment at issue in this case, the November 25, 2014 OWC written reasons for judgment noted only that “LUBA paid the $750 when the Rebel [Distributors Corp. v. LUBA Workers’ Comp., 12-0909 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/14) , 137 So.3d 91 ] case was published.” Further, the only testimony as to why LUBA waited until 2014 to pay the $750 in nonemergency treatment costs, incurred for each of the instant injured employee patients in 2008, was presented during the February 24, 2014 OWC hearing in a colloquy between LUBA representative C.

2016With respect to the cost of the nonemer-gency treatment at issue in this case, the November 25, 2014 OWC written reasons for judgment noted only that “LUBA paid the $750 when the Rebel [Distributors Corp. v. LUBA Workers’ Comp., 12-0909 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/14) , 137 So.3d 91 ] case was published.” Further, the only testimony as to why LUBA waited until 2014 to pay the $750 in nonemergency treatment costs, incurred for each of the instant injured employee patients in 2008, was presented during the February 24, 2014 OWC hearing in a colloquy between LUBA representative C.

2016App. 3 Cir. 4/2/14), 137 So.3d 91 ] case was published.” Further, the only testimony as to why LUBA waited until 2014 to pay the $750 in nonemergency treatment costs, incurred for each of the instant injured employee patients in 2008, was presented during the February 24, 2014 OWC hearing in a colloquy between LUBA representative C.

2014Hardee , 2007-242 at 3, 961 So.2d at 533 .

2014Hardee , 2007-242 at 3, 961 So.2d at 533 .

2012In its reasons for judgment, the OWC hearing officer found Mr. Marange’s version of the incident was not credible, stating: Based on the Bruno [v. Harbor [Harbert] International, 593 So.2d 357 (La.1992) ] case, the Court finds that other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt on Mr. Marange’s version of the incident.

2012In its reasons for judgment, the OWC hearing officer found Mr. Marange’s version of the incident was not credible, stating: Based on the Bruno [v. Harbor [Harbert] International, 593 So.2d 357 (La.1992) ] case, the Court finds that other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt on Mr. Marange’s version of the incident.

2012In Interiano v. Fernando Pastrana Const., 04-430 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/26/04) , 887 So.2d 547 , the Fifth Circuit found no error in the OWC hearing officer’s ruling ordering the claimant to cooperate in voca tional rehabilitation services but declining to require the counselor to agree to abide by the Crain Brothers conditions before commencing to provide such services.

2012In Interiano v. Fernando Pastrana Const., 04-430 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/26/04) , 887 So.2d 547 , the Fifth Circuit found no error in the OWC hearing officer’s ruling ordering the claimant to cooperate in voca tional rehabilitation services but declining to require the counselor to agree to abide by the Crain Brothers conditions before commencing to provide such services.

2012Frith v. Riverwood, Inc., 2004-1086, p. 12 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 7, 15 .

2012Frith v. Riverwood, Inc., 2004-1086, p. 12 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 7, 15 .

2010Buxton , 09-0520 at p. 18, 23 So.3d at 287 .

2010Buxton , 09-0520 at p. 18, 23 So.3d at 287 .

2010Id.

2010Id.

2010The court found no error in the hearing officer’s conclusion in this regard, citing Fabre v. ICF Kaiser Int’l, 01-2734 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/02) , 835 So.2d 724 .

2010The court found no error in the hearing officer’s conclusion in this regard, citing Fabre v. ICF Kaiser Int’l, 01-2734 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/02) , 835 So.2d 724 .

2009Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Board, 07-0677 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/5/07) , 972 So.2d 417 .

2009Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Board, 07-0677 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/5/07) , 972 So.2d 417 .

2008In Montgomery v. Orleans Parish School Bd., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/2/04), 876 So.2d 870 , this Court recently discussed the standard of review in workers' compensation cases, stating: It is well settled that factual findings in workers' compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.

2006In doing so, we observed that "[a]dequate notice is one of the most elementary requirements of procedural due process; it is fundamental to our system of laws that there be notice prior to trial, except in extraordinary cases, such as executory process." Davis v. Dunn & Bush Construction, 01-2472, p. 4 (La.App. 1st Cir.8/20/03), 859 So.2d 155, 158 .

2006In doing so, we observed that "[a]dequate notice is one of the most elementary requirements of procedural due process; it is fundamental to our system of laws that there be notice prior to trial, except in extraordinary cases, such as executory process." Davis v. Dunn & Bush Construction, 01-2472, p. 4 (La.App. 1st Cir.8/20/03), 859 So.2d 155, 158 .

2005Under LSA-R.S. 23:1201 there is no limitation on the amount of attorney fees that may be awarded; the legislature's only mandate is that such attorney fees be "reasonable." See Ardoin v. Kipling Korner Grocery, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/17/02), 824 So.2d 371, 374 .

2005Under LSA-R.S. 23:1201 there is no limitation on the amount of attorney fees that may be awarded; the legislature's only mandate is that such attorney fees be "reasonable." See Ardoin v. Kipling Korner Grocery, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/17/02), 824 So.2d 371, 374 .

2004Id.; see also Ortego v. CXY Energy, (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/10/96), 670 So.2d 217 ; Pierce v. Louisiana Maintenance Service, Inc., (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/96), 668 So.2d 1232 .

2004Id.; see also Ortego v. CXY Energy, (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/10/96), 670 So.2d 217 ; Pierce v. Louisiana Maintenance Service, Inc., (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/96), 668 So.2d 1232 .

2002Rather, the appellate court, relying on the decisions in Smith v. UNR Home Products, 614 So.2d 54 (La.1993), Volion v. Baker Heritage, Inc., 97-92 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97) , 695 So.2d 1038 , and Beaumont v. Exxon Corp., 98-1239 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99) , 734 So.2d 155 , dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the OWC for a hearing on the remaining issues.

2002Rather, the appellate court, relying on the decisions in Smith v. UNR Home Products, 614 So.2d 54 (La.1993), Volion v. Baker Heritage, Inc., 97-92 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97) , 695 So.2d 1038 , and Beaumont v. Exxon Corp., 98-1239 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99) , 734 So.2d 155 , dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the OWC for a hearing on the remaining issues.

2002Rhodes v. Lewis, 00-1359 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/4/01) , 784 So.2d 712 .

2002Rather, the appellate court, relying on the decisions in Smith v. UNR Home Products, 614 So.2d 54 (La.1993), Volion v. Baker Heritage, Inc., 97-92 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97) , 695 So.2d 1038 , and Beaumont v. Exxon Corp., 98-1239 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99) , 734 So.2d 155 , dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the OWC for a hearing on the remaining issues.

2002Rather, the appellate court, relying on the decisions in Smith v. UNR Home Products, 614 So.2d 54 (La.1993), Volion v. Baker Heritage, Inc., 97-92 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97) , 695 So.2d 1038 , and Beaumont v. Exxon Corp., 98-1239 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/27/99) , 734 So.2d 155 , dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the OWC for a hearing on the remaining issues.

1998In the appeal of that OWC ruling, this court determined that the OWC hearing officer had erred in finding Aetna liable to claimant for compensation benefits, reversed that portion of the OWC ruling which cast Aetna in judgment, Prevost , 95-0224 at p. 4; 665 So.2d at 403 , and concluded that Guarantee was liable to claimant for monthly Supplemental Earnings Benefits ("SEB") in the amount of $1212.60.

1998In the appeal of that OWC ruling, this court determined that the OWC hearing officer had erred in finding Aetna liable to claimant for compensation benefits, reversed that portion of the OWC ruling which cast Aetna in judgment, Prevost , 95-0224 at p. 4; 665 So.2d at 403 , and concluded that Guarantee was liable to claimant for monthly Supplemental Earnings Benefits ("SEB") in the amount of $1212.60.