§1317. Hearing on the merits; rules of procedure; effect of judgment; costs; fees of medical witnesses
A. If an answer has been filed within the delays allowed by law or granted by the workers' compensation judge, or if no judgment has been entered as provided in R.S. 23:1316 at the time for hearing or any adjournment thereof, the workers' compensation judge shall hear the evidence that may be presented by each party. Each party shall have the right to be present at any hearing or to appear through an attorney. The workers' compensation judge shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence or procedure other than as herein provided, but all findings of fact must be based upon competent evidence and all compensation payments provided for in this Chapter shall mean and be defined to be for only such injuries as are proven by competent evidence, or for which there are or have been objective conditions or symptoms proven, not within the physical or mental control of the injured employee himself. The workers' compensation judge shall decide the merits of the controversy as equitably, summarily, and simply as may be.
B. Costs may be awarded by the workers' compensation judge, in his discretion, and when so awarded the same may be allowed, taxed, and collected as in other civil proceedings. The fees of expert witnesses shall be reasonable and fixed in the original judgment. The judgment rendered shall have the same force and effect and may be satisfied as a judgment of a district court.
Acts 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 1, §1, eff. July 1, 1983; Acts 1988, No. 938, §1, eff. July 1, 1989; Acts 1989, No. 23, §1, eff. June 15, 1989; Acts 1989, No. 260, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1990; Acts 1997, No. 88, §1, eff. June 11, 1997; Acts 2004, No. 341, §1, eff. June 18, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Chaisson v. Cajun Bag & Supply Co., 708 So. 2d 375 (La. 1998).
· cites it 7× “This legislative mandate is necessary because under the express language of LSA-RS 23:1317, worker's compensation hearing officers are "not bound by the technical rules of evidence.”
Boleware v. City of Bogalusa, 837 So. 2d 71 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “Heritage Manor of Houma did not challenge the award of expert witness fees pursuant to the rule to tax costs as being in violation of LSA-R.S. 23:1317. [10] Because that issue was not specifically raised in the appeal, we do not find this court's ruling in Bourgeois v.”
Roussell v. St. Tammany Par. Sch. Bd., 943 So. 2d 449 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “LSA-R.S. 23:1317(A). Because the worker's compensation law no longer addresses the timing or procedure for amendments to pleadings, we conclude that the decision as to whether to allow the filing of an amended answer under these circumstances was a matter within the WCJ's…”
Zavala v. St. Joe Brick Works, 999 So. 2d 13 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “This legislative mandate is necessary because under the express language of R.S. 23:1317, WCCs are "not... bound by the technical rules of evidence.”
Hudson v. East Baton Rouge Sch. Bd., 844 So. 2d 282 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “The Louisiana Supreme Court has explained: LSA-RS 23:1317 mandates that the hearing officer's factual findings be based on "competent evidence.”
Andrews v. Pine Hill Wood Co., 426 So. 2d 196 (La. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 5× “See LSA-R.S. 23:1317. Mr. Andrews' claim is corroborated by the medical data; although the medical testimony in this case has often been ambiguous with respect to the extent, cause or duration of claimant's injuries, there has been little equivocation as to the existence of…”
Detraz v. Lee, 950 So. 2d 557 (La. 2007).
“R.S. 23:1317. In my view, this Court erred in Housley v.”
Rhodes v. Lewis, 817 So. 2d 64 (La. 2002).
“" LSA R.S. 23:1317(A). The new procedures are designed to speed up the adjudicative process, not to prolong and complicate it by partial judgments and multiple appeals.”
Feild v. Gen. Motors Corp., 828 So. 2d 150 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “23:1225 C(1)(c), she argues that faxed copies of computer printouts and the testimony of the claims adjuster were inadequate to establish the credit, despite the relaxed evidentiary standard of compensation cases, R.S. 23:1317. Second, she argues that even if her S & A and…”
Baker v. Harrah's, 190 So. 3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
“R.S. 23:1317(A), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ■ - The workers' compensation judge shall not be bound by-technical'rules of evidence or procedure other than! as herein provided, but all findings of fact must ,be based upon competent evidence and all.”
Bourgeois v. Heritage Manor of Houma, 691 So. 2d 703 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “LSA-R.S. 23:1317(B) provides in pertinent part: Costs may be awarded by the hearing officer, in his discretion, and when so awarded the same may be allowed, taxed, and collected as in other civil proceedings.”
Tantillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 315 So. 2d 743 (La. 1975).
· cites it 2× “1948), the appellate court, with Judge Hardy as its organ, held that the plaintiff had established his claim of the existence of physical pain and suffering, despite findings of physicians that there were no objective symptoms of disability. See also, Gates v.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1317(A): 86 cases
Rhodes v. Lewis, 817 So. 2d 64 (La. 2002).
“" LSA R.S. 23:1317(A). The new procedures are designed to speed up the adjudicative process, not to prolong and complicate it by partial judgments and multiple appeals.”
Baker v. Harrah's, 190 So. 3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
“R.S. 23:1317(A), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ■ - The workers' compensation judge shall not be bound by-technical'rules of evidence or procedure other than! as herein provided, but all findings of fact must ,be based upon competent evidence and all.”
Roussell v. St. Tammany Par. Sch. Bd., 943 So. 2d 449 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
“LSA-R.S. 23:1317(A). Because the worker's compensation law no longer addresses the timing or procedure for amendments to pleadings, we conclude that the decision as to whether to allow the filing of an amended answer under these circumstances was a matter within the WCJ's…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1317(B): 30 cases
Boleware v. City of Bogalusa, 837 So. 2d 71 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
“Heritage Manor of Houma did not challenge the award of expert witness fees pursuant to the rule to tax costs as being in violation of LSA-R.S. 23:1317. [10] Because that issue was not specifically raised in the appeal, we do not find this court's ruling in Bourgeois v.”
Roussell v. St. Tammany Par. Sch. Bd., 943 So. 2d 449 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
“LSA-R.S. 23:1317(A). Because the worker's compensation law no longer addresses the timing or procedure for amendments to pleadings, we conclude that the decision as to whether to allow the filing of an amended answer under these circumstances was a matter within the WCJ's…”
Bourgeois v. Heritage Manor of Houma, 691 So. 2d 703 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
“LSA-R.S. 23:1317(B) provides in pertinent part: Costs may be awarded by the hearing officer, in his discretion, and when so awarded the same may be allowed, taxed, and collected as in other civil proceedings.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1317(D)(3): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.