Neil Laugand v. Four Points by Sheraton

NEIL LAUGAND * NO. 2024-CA-0687

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
NO. 19-01228, DISTRICT “08”
Honorable Catrice Johnson-Reid, The Office of Workers' Compensation
******
Judge Monique G. Morial
******
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott, Judge
Monique G. Morial)

Arthur G. Laugand
2718 Onzaga Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Thomas Michael Ruli
Jeffrey Charles Napolitano
JUGE NAPOLITANO GUILBEAU RULI FRIEMAN & WHITELEY
3320 West Esplanade Avenue North
Metairie, LA 70002

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

AFFIRMED
FEBRUARY 26, 2025

This is a workers’ compensation case. Claimant seeks review of the Office

MGM of Workers’ Compensation’s (OWC) judgment granting defendant-employer’s
DLD
NEK motion for involuntary dismissal, which dismissed his claim for certain medical

benefits. Claimant also seeks review of the OWC judgment finding that he

committed fraud and thereby forfeited his workers’ compensation benefits pursuant

to La. R.S. 23:1208. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This litigation arises out of a March 11, 2016 accident. Claimant, Neil

Laugand, was working as a bellman for defendant-employer, Springfield

Corporation d/b/a Four Point Sheraton Hotel, when his right shoulder and hand

were struck by the mirror of a vehicle traveling the wrong way down the street.

The accident is not in dispute. On February 21, 2019, after nearly three years of

medical treatment for a shoulder injury including two arthroscopic shoulder

procedures, Claimant filed a 1008 disputed claim for compensation form1 seeking

1 Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1310 pertains to the “[i]nitial filing of claim with office of

workers’ compensation administration,” and it provides:
A. If, at any time after notification to the office of the occurrence of death or
injury resulting in excess of seven days lost time, a bona fide dispute occurs, the

1

approval for an MRI of his cervical spine. Defendants, Springfield Corporation and

LUBA Casualty Insurance Company, filed an answer to the claim, in which they

admitted to the accident and resulting shoulder injury, but contended that

Claimant’s newly raised cervical spine complaints were not related to the accident

at issue and are thus not compensable.

On January 7, 2020, Claimant filed an amended disputed claim for

compensation, seeking additional benefits and challenging the calculation of the

average weekly wage rate and the accuracy of the indemnity benefits paid.2

Defendants filed a reconventional demand and supplemental and amending

answer, wherein they alleged the affirmative defense of fraud under La. R.S.

23:1208.3

The matter proceeded to trial on September 9, 2022. At the conclusion of

Claimant’s case-in-chief, the defense moved for an involuntary dismissal of

Claimant’s claims. The trial judge found that Claimant failed to meet his burden to

prove that his cervical complaints or radicular symptoms were related to the March

11, 2016 accident and granted the motion for involuntary dismissal. As to

employee or his dependent or the employer or insurer may file a claim with the
state office, or the district office where the hearing will be held, on a form to be
provided by the assistant secretary.
B. In addition to any other information required by the assistant secretary, the
claim shall set forth the time, place, nature, and cause of the injury, the benefit in
dispute, and the employee’s actual earnings, if any, at the time of the filing of the
claim with the office.
2 This amended disputed claim for compensation was subsequently voluntarily dismissed by

Claimant prior to trial.
3 On April 9, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on their fraud defense,

contending that Claimant fraudulently sought an increase in his indemnity benefits calculation
based on a misrepresentation that he had amended his 2015 tax return to reflect an increased
income. On August 3, 2021, the OWC denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In its
written judgment, the OWC stated that it was unable to consider Claimant’s IRS documentation
in connection with the motion for summary judgment because the documents were not verified
and/or authenticated. Nevertheless, the OWC found the determination of the subjective issue of
intent to commit fraud inappropriate for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.

2

Defendants’ fraud defense pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1208, the OWC determined that

Claimant willfully “made statements and misrepresentations regarding his wages,

earnings, tax filing and tip income, solely for the purpose of increasing his average

weekly wages and compensation rate in an effort to seek additional workers’

compensation benefits.”4 The judgment ordered that Claimant had forfeited his

right to workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1208. This timely

appeal followed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

On appeal, Claimant seeks review of the judgment granting Defendants’

motion for involuntary dismissal and dismissing his claim for medical treatment.

He further appeals the OWC’s judgment on Defendant’s fraud claim, wherein the

OWC made a factual finding that Claimant committed fraud in violation of La.

R.S. 23:1208. Because a finding of fraud in a workers’ compensation case results

in a forfeiture of all benefits, including medical benefits, as a matter of law, we

will first address the judgment finding that Claimant committed fraud in violation

of La. R.S. 23:1208.

Fraud

The workers’ compensation statutes have a separate anti-fraud forfeiture

provision by which employers may affirmatively defend against paying a claim.

Lovas v. Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 18-0801, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/20/19),

4 The OWC took Defendants’ fraud claim under advisement and issued a written judgment on

February 3, 2023. The judgment also awarded restitution to Defendants and assessed a $5,000.00
civil penalty against Claimant, made payable to the Kids Chance Scholarship Fund pursuant to
La. R.S. 23:1208. Claimant subsequently filed a motion for new trial, which the OWC denied.
We note that the amount of restitution awarded is not provided in the judgment and thus it is
premature to determine whether the restitution amount awarded complied with La. R.S.
23:1208(D) as that issue is not before this Court at this time.

3

267 So.3d 129, 137(quotations omitted). This Court has recently discussed these

anti-forfeiture provisions as follows:

La. R.S. 23:1208 applies to situations in which, during a
pending claim, a claimant has made a false statement or
misrepresentation for the specific purpose of obtaining workers'
compensation benefits. Id. La. R.S. 23:1208 provides that:

[i]t shall be unlawful for any person, for the purposed of
obtaining or defeating any benefit or payment under the provisions of
this Chapter, either for himself or for any other person, to willfully
make a false statement or representation.

In addition[sic] to criminal and civil penalties, the fraud
provisions state that any person violating Section 1208 “may be
ordered to make restitution” and “shall forfeit any right to
compensation benefits under this Chapter.” La. R.S. 23:1208(D), (E).
Fraudulent statements encompass those made to anyone, including the
employer, physicians, or insurer. Resweber v. Haroil Constr. Co., 94-
2708, pp. 1-2 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 7, 9.

Lovas, 18-0801, p. 11, 267 So.3d at 137.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has examined the legislative history of the

anti-fraud provisions and found “a clear legislative intent to prevent and discourage

fraud in relation to workers’ compensation claims.” Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co.,

94-2708, p. 7 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 7, 12.

Forfeiture under La. R.S. 23:1208 shall be ordered if the employer or insurer

proves: “1) a false statement or representation, 2) which is willfully made, and 3)

which is made for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits.”

Lopez v. Home Furnishing Store, 00-0031, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/31/00), 772

So.2d 884, 887. (emphasis in original)(quoting Resweber, 94-2708, p. 7, 660 So.2d

at 12). Fraudulent statements encompass those made to anyone, including the

employer, physicians, or insurer. Resweber, 94-2708, p. 9, 660 So.2d at 1-2.

“Once it has been determined that a false statement or representation has

been made, the [OWC] must make a factual determination as to whether, based on

4

the record, the statement or representation was willfully made specifically to obtain

benefits, and thus to defraud the workers’ compensation system, such that benefits

should be forfeited.” Cembell Indus., Inc. v. Smith, 24-0348, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir.

2/11/25), ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 457220, at *12-13 (citing Fontenot v.

State ex rel. Dep’t of Health & Hosps., 12-1265, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/2/13), 116

So.3d 695, 698 (internal quotations and citations omitted). “If the workers’

compensation judge’s findings are based on determinations regarding the

credibility of witnesses, the manifest error-clearly wrong standard demands great

deference to the trier of fact’s findings because only the factfinder can be aware of

the variations of demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s

understanding and belief in what is said.” Id. at p. 5, ___ So.3d ___, 2025 WL

457220, at *10 (quoting Safford v. New Orleans Fire Dep’t, 23-0495, p. 24 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 2/1/24), 384 So.3d 909, 928).

In support of its fraud claim under La. R.S. 23:1208, Defendants alleged that

Claimant made false statements or misrepresentations in an effort to increase his

workers’ compensation benefits by (1) alleging that he filed an IRS 1040 X Form

to amend his 2015 income reported to the IRS, reflecting an additional $42,240.00

in cash tip income, and (2) submitting to defense counsel, during the course of

discovery in litigation, two forms or slips titled, “Employee Reports of Tip

Income” for the months of January 2016 and February 2016, immediately

preceding the March 2016 accident. Defendants claim that the evidence

introduced at trial demonstrates that Claimant did not in fact amend his 2015 tax

return as he represented and never reported the alleged additional tip income to his

employer or the IRS. Defendant further alleges that Claimant fraudulently

reported an unsubstantiated increased tip income for January and February 2016

5

during the course of litigation solely in an effort to increase the calculation of his

average weekly wage benefits.

At trial, Claimant testified that he began his employment at the Four Point

Sheraton Hotel as a security officer and worked his way up to a bellman to increase

his income. He testified that he was paid an hourly rate of approximately $7.25 to

$7.50 in addition to cash tips. Claimant testified that he would routinely fill out

“Employee Reports of Tip Income” forms or slips provided by his employer to

reflect cash tip income earned for tax purposes. Claimant testified that he would

regularly fill out tip forms, make a copy of each for himself, and then turn in a

copy to his employer. He testified that he turned in the two cash tip income forms

for January and February of 2016 at the end of those months and would expect his

employer to have a record of them; however, he stated that they could have been

misplaced by his supervisor and not turned into the payroll department. Claimant

testified that he turned in his tip forms regularly to the front desk, which is an open

area where “people were going back and forth….so things happen with your stuff,

or whatever.” At the time of trial, Claimant could not locate his 2016 tip income

forms. He testified that he maintained copies of the 2016 forms until 2019 and then

threw them away.

Concerning his 2015 tax return, Claimant testified that, during the course of

the separate tort litigation filed against the driver involved in the accident, he

discovered that his 2015 tax return did not include his cash tip income. He decided

then to amend his 2015 tax return to accurately reflect his income including tips.

He testified that he utilized the services of Ms. Helen Bougere through VITA

(“Volunteer Income Tax Assistance”), who assisted him in the preparation of the

documents. Claimant further testified that he completed and filed with the IRS an

6

amendment to his 2015 tax return to reflect an additional $42,240.00 in cash tip

income.5 However, he testified that Ms. Bougere instructed him to destroy or

throw away his supporting documentation, including the January and February

2016 tip income forms, after he completed and filed the 2015 amendment.

Defendants presented the testimony of Ms. Bougere, a twenty-nine-year

employee of the United Way IRS VITA program. Ms. Bougere testified that

Claimant visited the VITA program office sometime after tax season in 2019 to

complete or amend his 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 tax returns. She testified that

VITA processed and completed Claimant’s 2012-2014 returns. However, she was

unable to process his 2015 tax return amendment because he did not provide his

2015 W-2 or any other necessary supporting documentation. She testified that

without this documentation, the amendment could not be filed. Ms. Bougere

testified that, having worked as a tax preparer in some capacity for nearly 39 years,

she never instructed Claimant or advised any other client to destroy or throw away

any supporting tax documentation.

Ms. Carmel Ann Budo testified at trial that she has worked as an

administrative manager handling human resources, payroll record keeping, and

wage management for Ohio Management, L.L.C., a sister company of Springfield

d/b/a Four Points Sheraton for more than twenty years. She testified that,

concerning employee tip forms, the on-site managers would collect employee tip

forms from the bellman’s immediate supervisor and submit them to the main office

5 Claimant attempted to introduce into evidence three different documents purporting to be
documents he alleges he filed with the IRS to amend his 2015 return. The OWC overruled the
admissibility of that evidence, finding that the documents were not authenticated nor certified by
the IRS. At trial, defense counsel argued that the three documents Claimant attempted to
introduce into evidence reflect that each of the three forms contained different dates, signatures,
and stamping and were not competent evidence to prove that Claimant had filed any of the
documents with the IRS. Claimant did not proffer that evidence and that issue is not before the
Court.

7

in Metairie. She testified that in the twenty years performing payroll services for

the Four Points Sheraton Hotel, she has never had a bellman produce a tip report of

$2800 or $2900 for one month in cash tip income. She further testified that such a

high report of cash tip income may raise a “red flag” to an immediate supervisor.

Concerning Claimant’s 2015 payroll records, Ms. Budo testified that the

certified payroll records reflect that Claimant earned a total in income of

$21,287.00 and further, Claimant’s W-2 provided to him by his employer reflected

an income of $21,287.00.6 Ms. Budo stated that in her twenty-year employment

conducting payroll for this employer, Springfield Corporation d/b/a Four Points

Sheraton Hotel, she has never had a bellman report that his tip forms had not been

calculated properly or included in his W-2 form. Ms. Budo further testified that she

did not have any record of any tip forms for Claimant dated in January 2016 or

February 2016 and confirmed that the alleged tip forms Claimant contends he

filled out and turned in were never reported to payroll.

Defendants introduced into evidence Claimant’s certified wage records for

the six-month period of his employment as a bellman with Four Points Sheraton

Hotel prior to the accident at issue. The certified records reflect the following

amount of reported cash tip income:

9/11/2015: $147.00
9/25/2015: $500.00
10/9/2015: $301.00
11/6/2015: $300.00
11/20/2015: $150.00
12/18/2015: $250.00
1/1/2016: $45.00

6 Defendants also introduced into evidence certified IRS records, reflecting Claimant’s reported

2015 wages to be $21,287.00.

8

At the conclusion of trial, the OWC took the matter under advisement and

allowed for post-trial briefs on the issue of fraud. On February 3, 2023, the OWC

issued a judgment and reasons for judgment, finding that Claimant had committed

fraud as set forth in La. R.S. 23:1208 and had thus forfeited his workers’

compensation benefits. In the written reasons for judgment, the OWC specifically

stated:

The court listened to the live testimony of Neil Laugand and the
Administrative Manager at Four Points by Sheraton, Carmel Ann
Budo; read all admitted evidence, specifically the deposition
transcripts of Helen Bougere, United Way VITA employee; reviewed
the certified Internal Revenue Service tax returns for Neil Laugand
from 2014-2016; and the two (2) Form 4070s – Employee’s Report of
Tip Income, one dated January 5, 2016 in the amount of $2,900.00
and the other dated February 3, 2016, and all post-trial submission.
The Court does not believe the testimony of Neil Laugand. The Court
was presented with conflicting testimony and documentation which
showed that the testimony of Neil Laugand was false. The Court
believes that the testimony provided by Neil Laugand was self-serving
for purposes to convince the Court of his position. The Court
reviewed documentation that had been submitted by Neil Laugand
that purported to show that he had amended his 2015 Internal
Revenue Service tax return. However, the certified records of the
Internal Revenue Service show that the only tax returns by them were
for the tax year 2015 - Form 1040. That no other years were received
nor were there any amended tax returns for any years, specifically
2015, at the of this trial.
Neil Laugand further testified that he used the services of the
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program of the United Way
to help prepare and file his amended tax return. The admitted
deposition transcript of Helen Bougere, a twenty-nine (29) year
United Way employee, shows that while Neil Laugand did appear at
the United Way for assistance to amend his 2015 tax return, however,
Helen Bougere was unable to assist Neil Laugand because he was
missing important documentation necessary to file the amended
return, i.e. the original 2015 tax return and other supporting
documentation such as the Form 4070 – Employee’s Report of Tips.
Helen Bougere further testified via deposition that she did not advise
Neil Laugand to throw away any documents necessary to support his
tax filings for any years as he suggested in his testimony.
Additional evidence used by Neil Laugand to support his claim of
inflated income have also been discredited. The live testimony of

9

Carmel Ann Budo seems to solidify for the Court that the
documentation provided by Neil Laugand, i.e. the Form 4070s -
Employee’s Report of Tips, were false and made for the purpose of
increasing his average weekly wage and compensation rate. In her
experience as a thirty (30) plus year administrative manager, twenty
years in this current position at Four Points by Sheraton, it is her
opinion that the Form 4070s – Employee’s Report of Tip Income are a
part of the payroll reports and used to calculate the average weekly
wage. That in her tenure as administrative manager, she has never
seen tip report forms as high as the one claimed by Neil Laugand.
That as part of her duties in compiling wage records for Neil Laugand,
the two (2) Form 4070s at issue are not contained in any records held
by Four Points by Sheraton.
Thus, Four Points by Sheraton and LUBA Workers’ Compensation
have established that Neil Laugand has violated Louisiana Revised
Statute 23:1208 and committed fraud by willful and materially made
statements and misrepresentations regarding his wages, earnings, tax
filing and tip income, solely for the purpose of increasing his average
weekly wages and compensation rate in an effort to seek additional
workers’ compensation benefits from them.

The OWC’s written reasons reflect that Claimant’s credibility was a

significant consideration in the factual determination that he had committed fraud

in violation of La. R.S. 23:1208. Based on a thorough review of the record, we do

not find that the OWC committed manifest error or was clearly wrong in its

determination. See Lovas, supra (wherein this Court found that the claimant’s

credibility was a significant consideration to support the factual determination that

the claimant had committed fraud).

The OWC clearly considered the credibility of the witnesses and made a

factual determination that Claimant had in fact willfully “made statements and

misrepresentations regarding his wages, earnings, tax filing and tip income, solely

for the purpose of increasing his average weekly wages and compensation rate in

an effort to seek additional workers’ compensation benefits.” Upon review of the

10

record, we find that the OWC did not err in its judgment and we affirm the OWC’s

February 3, 2023 judgment on Defendants’ fraud claim.

La. R.S. 23:1208 provides that if it is determined that a claimant has

committed fraud in an effort to increase his workers’ compensation benefits, that

claimant “shall forfeit any right to compensation benefits under this Chapter.” La.

R.S. 23:1208(E). Because our review reflects that the OWC did not err in its

determination that Claimant violated La. R.S. 23:1208, we consequently affirm the

OWC ruling dismissing Claimant’s disputed claim for compensation related to

medical benefits because those benefits are forfeited as a matter of law. St. Bernard

Par. Police Jury v. Duplessis, 02-0632, pp. 8-9 (La. 12/4/02), 831 So.2d 955, 960

(wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court found that forfeiture of benefits under the

anti-fraud provisions applies to all benefits, including medical and indemnity

benefits); see also Ard v. Orleans Material & Equip., 98-0312, p. 3 (La. App. 4

Cir. 12/29/98), 727 So.2d 1183, 1185 (wherein this Court held that forfeiture under

La. R.S. 23:1208 after a fraud determination results in the forfeiture of all

benefits).

DECREE

Accordingly, the judgments appealed are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

11