Joseph Rodrigue v. City of New Orleans Fire Department

JOSEPH RODRIGUE * NO. 2024-CA-0806

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS *
FIRE DEPARTMENT FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
NO. 22-00781, DISTRICT “8”
Honorable Abril Baloney, The Office of Workers’ Compensation
******
Judge Dale N. Atkins
******
(Court composed of Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge
Dale N. Atkins)

William Roy Mustian, III
STANGA & MUSTIAN, P.L.C.
3117 22nd Street, Suite 6
Metairie, LA 70002

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, Joseph Rodrigue

Wayne J. Fontana
Stephen G. Collura
ROEDEL PARSONS BLACHE FONTANA PIONTEK & PISANO, A L.C.
1555 Poydras Street, Suite 1700
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, City of New Orleans Fire
Department

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED
MARCH 31, 2025

DNA

PAB

TGC

This is a workers’ compensation case. Appellant, the City of New Orleans

Fire Department (“NOFD”), appeals the September 29, 2023 judgment rendered by

the workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”), which ruled on a disputed claim for

compensation filed by Appellee, Joseph Rodrigue (“Mr. Rodrigue”). First, the

WCJ ruled Mr. Rodrigue established he had a compensable claim under the

Firefighter’s Heart and Lung Act (La. R.S. 33:2581). Second, the WCJ held Mr.

Rodrigue was entitled to temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $705

per week, retroactive to September 22, 2021. Third, the WCJ found Mr. Rodrigue

failed to establish that medical bills were incurred by his health insurer as a result

of the NOFD’s denial of his claim for compensation and, as a result, the NOFD

was not liable for health insurance reimbursements pursuant to La. R.S.

23:1205(C). Fourth, the WCJ ruled Mr. Rodrigue was not entitled to an award of

penalties and attorney’s fees because he failed to plead or pray for same prior to

the matter being submitted. However, the WCJ then further ruled in the judgment

“that this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice.”

As written, the judgment listed the issues presented at trial as:

1. Whether [Mr. Rodrigue] has a compensable claim under
the [Firefighter’s] Heart and Lung Act?

1

2. What benefits are awardable to [Mr. Rodrigue]?

3. Whether [the NOFD] is liable to [Mr. Rodrigue]’s health
insurer for the payment of certain medical benefits?

4. Whether [Mr. Rodrigue] is entitled to an award for
Penalties and Attorney’s Fees?

The judgment then provided the following decree:

The Court has concluded from the testimony and evidence presented,
the following:

[1.] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that [Mr. Rodrigue] has established that he has a
compensable claim under the [Firefighter’s] Heart and Lung Act.

[2.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that [Mr. Rodrigue] is entitled to temporary total
disability benefits in the amount of $705 per week, retroactive to
September 22, 2021, subject to the coordination of benefits, as
established by La. R.S. 23:1225(C).[1]

1 Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1225 is titled “Reductions when other benefits payable.”

It states, in pertinent part:

C. (1) If an employee receives remuneration from:

(a) Benefits under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law.

(b) Repealed by Acts 2003, No. 616, § 1.

(c) Benefits under disability benefit plans in the proportion funded by an
employer.

(d) Any other workers’ compensation benefits,

then compensation benefits under this Chapter shall be reduced, unless there is an
agreement to the contrary between the employee and the employer liable for
payment of the workers’ compensation benefit, so that the aggregate remuneration
from Subparagraphs (a) through (d) of this Paragraph shall not exceed sixty-six
and two-thirds percent of his average weekly wage.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Subsection,
benefits payable for injury to an employee under this Chapter shall not be reduced
by the receipt of benefits under this Chapter or any other laws for injury or death
sustained by another person.

(3) If an employee is receiving both workers’ compensation benefits and
disability benefits subject to a plan providing for reduction of disability benefits,
the reduction of workers’ compensation benefits required by Paragraph (1) of this
Subsection shall be made by taking into account the full amount of employer

2

[3.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that [Mr. Rodrigue] failed to establish that medical bills
were incurred by [his] health insurer, as a result of [the NOFD]’s
denial of the claim. As such, [the NOFD] is not liable for health
insurance reimbursements, pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1205(C).[2]

[4.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that [Mr. Rodrigue] is not entitled to an award for
penalties and attorney’s fees, as [he] failed to plead or pray for the
same prior to the matter being submitted.

[5.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice.

The decretal language of this judgment is contradictory. On the one hand, the

judgment decrees Mr. Rodrigue proved a compensable claim under the

funded disability benefits, pursuant to plan provisions, before any reduction of
disability benefits are made.

(4) If a conflict arises between the application of the provisions of this
Section and those of any other Louisiana law or contract of insurance, the
provisions of this Section shall control.

La. R.S. 23:1225(C).
2 Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1205 is titled “Claim for payments; privilege of
employee; non-assignability; exemption from seizure; payment of denied medical expenses.” It
provides, in relevant part:

C. (1) In the event that the workers’ compensation payor has denied that
the employee’s injury is compensable under this Chapter, then any health insurer
which contracts to provide health care benefits for an employee shall be
responsible for the payment of all medical benefits pursuant to the terms of the
health insurer’s policy. Any health insurer which contracts to provide health care
benefits for an employee who violates the provisions of this Subsection shall be
liable to the employee or health care provider for reasonable attorney fees and
costs related to the dispute and to the employee for any health benefits payable.

(2) The payment of medical expenses shall be recoverable pursuant to and
in accordance with Subsection B of this Section. However, if it is determined that
the worker’s compensation payor was responsible for payment of medical benefits
that have been paid by the health insurer, the obligation of the worker’s
compensation payor for such benefits shall be to reimburse the health insurer one
hundred percent of the benefits it paid. If it is determined that the worker’s
compensation payor was responsible for payment of benefits and its denial of
responsibility is determined to be arbitrary and capricious, then the health insurer
shall also be entitled to recover legal interest on any benefits it paid, calculated
from the date such benefits were due.

La. R.S. 23:1205(C).

3

Firefighter’s Heart and Lung Act and is entitled to weekly disability benefits but is

not entitled to health insurance reimbursement, penalties, and attorney’s fees.

Those holdings appear in paragraphs one through four of the decretal section of the

judgment and match up with the four issues listed by the trial court as having been

raised in this matter. On the other hand, the judgment then rules the entire matter is

dismissed with prejudice, thereby contradicting the prior four paragraphs that

resolved all of the issues raised in this matter. This holding appears in paragraph

five of the decretal section of the judgment. That is, the judgment essentially

contains a decree granting some of the relief requested by Mr. Rodrigue and

denying the rest of the relief requested by him (paragraphs one through four) but

contains another decree dismissing his entire case (paragraph five).

The contradictory language of the September 29, 2023 judgment renders this

Court unable to address the merits of the NOFD’s appeal. Although the NOFD’s

brief to this Court focuses on the WCJ’s conclusion that Mr. Rodrigue proved a

claim under the Firefighter’s Heart and Lung Act, the record is unclear as to the

WCJ’s intent in stating in the judgment that the matter was dismissed with

prejudice after having already delineated a ruling for each of the issues raised at

the trial of this matter. It is unclear whether the WCJ was granting some of the

relief requested by Mr. Rodrigue and denying the rest of the relief requested by

him (paragraphs one through four) or if the WCJ was dismissing his entire case

(paragraph five).

Given the procedural posture of this appeal, we find it appropriate to

exercise our discretion under La. C.C.P. art. 21643 to vacate the September 29,

3 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2164 provides:

4

2023 judgment and to remand for the trial court to issue a proper judgment. See La.

C.C.P. art. 2162.4 See generally Jones v. Quality Distrib., Inc., 2021-0280, 0281

(La. App. 4 Cir. 8/4/21), 325 So.3d 1097.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the WCJ’s September 29, 2023

judgment and remand this matter to the trial court to issue a proper judgment

within fifteen days of the date of this Opinion.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED

The appellate court shall render any judgment which is just, legal, and
proper upon the record on appeal. The court may award damages, including
attorney fees, for frivolous appeal or application for writs, and may tax the costs
of the lower or appellate court, or any part thereof, against any party to the suit, as
in its judgment may be considered equitable.
4 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2162 states, in pertinent part:

An appeal can be dismissed at any time by consent of all parties, or for
lack of jurisdiction of the appellate court, or because there is no right to appeal, or
if, under the rules of the appellate court, the appeal has been abandoned.

5