Montreal Linn v. Ouachita Parish Police Jury

Judgment rendered April 10, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 55,480-WCA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

MONTREAL LINN Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

OUACHITA PARISH POLICE Defendant-Appellee
JURY

*****

Appealed from the
Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 1-E
Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 22-06587

Brenza Irving Jones
Workers’ Compensation Judge

*****

MONTREAL LINN Pro Se

JAMES M. EDWARDS, LLC Counsel for Appellees,
By: James M. Edwards Ouachita Parish Police
Jury and Ouachita
American Job Center

*****

Before STONE, ROBINSON, and ELLENDER, JJ.

ELLENDER, J.

Montreal Linn (“Linn”) contracted COVID during the time he was

employed as a sanitation worker for the Ouachita Parish Police Jury

(“OPPJ”). Following his illness, Linn filed an untimely workers’

compensation claim, which was dismissed on an exception of prescription.

We affirm.

FACTS

Linn was hired by the OPPJ on September 13, 2021, through a

government grant program entitled “Ouachita American Job Center” and

was assigned as a sanitation worker in Monroe at both the Henrietta Johnson

and Emily P. Robinson Recreation Centers. Linn alleged he contracted

COVID on October 16, 2021, during a fall festival at the Johnson Center,

later tested negative on October 26, returned to work on October 28, and was

released to full work duties on November 3. Linn was terminated for

unrelated reasons on December 21, 2021. Following his termination, Linn

contacted multiple state agencies attempting to file various grievances and

claims for discrimination, wrongful termination, and pay.

Self-represented, Linn filed a disputed claim on December 20, 2022,

with the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWCA”) in which he

designated his injury as COVID and checked three boxes on the claim form

that applied to his dispute, which read: (1) no wage benefits have been paid,

(2) occupational illness, and (3) wage benefits terminated or reduced. In this

claim, Linn incorrectly listed his employer as Ouachita American Job

Center, but the OPPJ was later stipulated as his employer in a responsive

pleading.

In January 2023 the OPPJ filed a peremptory exception of prescription

alleging more than one year had lapsed prior to Linn filing his claim. A

hearing was held on the exception in February 2023 where Linn claimed he

sent multiple emails following his illness to OWCA, and several other state

agencies, but no one provided him with the proper information to file a claim.

In response to questioning by the workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) as to

why he was now able to file a claim, Linn said he was given the information

by an unidentified source. On multiple occasions during the hearing, the

WCJ allowed Linn every opportunity to provide information that might help

his position, even giving him a recess to obtain additional documentation.

One of the items Linn provided was a copy of an email thread dated June 8-9,

2022, between Linn and OWCA in which he was informed they were not a

proper party representative, nor did they have jurisdiction in the matter. The

copy of the thread did not include the substance of the message originally sent

by Linn to OWCA or the substance of any other subsequent communications.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the WCJ granted the OPPJ’s exception and

dismissed Linn’s claim. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Linn, also self-represented on appeal, submitted a handwritten

document, with attachments, to this Court styled “Motion for New Trial and

Brief” that is devoid of any assignments of error and basically just asks this

Court to reverse the judgment of the WCJ; this does not satisfy the

requirements for a brief found in URCA 2-12.4. When no errors are

designated, the court is confined to reviewing only errors discoverable by

mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the

evidence. La. C. Cr. Pr. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So. 2d 337 (La.
2

1975); State v. Dilley, 440 So. 2d 826 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1983). In the interest

of justice, this Court will read pro se filings indulgently and attempt to discern

the thrust of the appellant’s position on appeal and the relief he seeks. Fobbs

v. CompuCom Sys., Inc., 55,173 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/23), 371 So. 3d 1146;

Magee v. Williams, 50,726 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/22/16), 197 So. 3d 265.

However, even with the latitude extended to a pro se litigant in the form of

liberally construed pleadings, he is required to meet his burden of proof. Id.

The WCJ dismissed Linn’s action pursuant to a peremptory exception

of prescription, which alleged the one-year prescriptive period for filing a

workers’ compensation claim involving an occupational illness had lapsed.

La. R.S. 23:1031.1(E) provides:

All claims for disability arising from an occupational disease
are barred unless the employee files a claim as provided in this
Chapter within one year of the date that:

(1) The disease manifested itself.

(2) The employee is disabled from working as a result of
the disease.

(3) The employee knows or has reasonable grounds to
believe that the disease is occupationally related.

All three of these elements must be satisfied before prescription begins to run

on an occupational disease claim. Bynum v. Capital City Press, 95-1395 (La.

7/2/96), 676 So. 2d 582; City of Bossier City v. Colvin, 45,278 (La. App. 2

Cir. 5/19/10), 36 So. 3d 1207. When a workers’ compensation claim has

prescribed on its face, the claimant has the burden of showing that

prescription has been interrupted or suspended in some manner. Causby v.

Perque Floor Covering, 97-1235 (La. 1/21/98), 707 So. 2d 23; Millican v.

Gen. Motors Corp., 34,207 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/1/00), 771 So. 2d 234, writ

denied, 01-0001 (La. 3/24/01), 788 So. 2d 426. The prescriptive periods
3

under the Workers’ Compensation Act are liberally construed to maintain

rather than bar a claimant’s action. Thomas v. Hollywood Casino, 44,271 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 5/13/09), 13 So. 3d 717.

Linn failed to provide any evidence to suggest the prescriptive period

for his claim was interrupted or suspended. Following its ruling, the WCJ

submitted written reasons for judgment concluding none of the multiple

documents, filings, and complaints made by Linn amounted to filing for

workers’ compensation benefits, thus there was no interruption of the

prescriptive period. We agree. The documents submitted by Linn included

his medical records, work agreement, employment file, correspondence with

the City of Monroe, the record of his grievance filed with the Division of

Administrative Law which was dismissed, and the denial of his discrimination

complaint filed with the Equal Opportunity and Compliance Division of

OWCA. None of these documents, even when liberally construed, asserted a

claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Our review of the record shows that on October 16, 2021, Linn

developed COVID, which he claims to have contracted while working, and,

as a result, missed two weeks of work. Taking this allegation as true, the

prescriptive period for any potential claim of occupational illness began to run

on October 16, 2021, the day all three of the events set forth in La. R.S.

23:1031.1(E) occurred: (1) Linn’s condition manifested itself, (2) he was

disabled from working as a result of this condition, and (3) he reasonably

believed the condition was occupationally related. Linn’s illness lasted only

about two weeks and he returned to full work duties on November 3, 2021.

By the time Linn submitted his claim to OWCA, on December 20, 2022, the

one-year prescriptive period had already lapsed. In light of this, and the
4

absence of any evidence provided by Linn to support an interruption or

suspension of prescription, we are compelled to find the WCJ properly

granted the OPPJ’s exception of prescription and dismissed Linn’s action.

As noted, Linn has not made any allegations which would interrupt the

one-year prescriptive period, but we still find it appropriate to note this period

can be extended by an additional six months if the employer failed to post

notice pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1031.1(I):

Notice of the time limitation in which claims may be filed for
occupational disease or death resulting from occupational
disease shall be posted by the employer at some convenient and
conspicuous point about the place of business. If the employer
fails to post this notice, the time in which a claim may be filed
shall be extended for an additional six months.

Linn bears the burden of showing such notices were not posted, Mire v.

Ranger Plant Const. Co., 01-2247 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/27/02), 835 So. 2d 550;

Duos v. Evangeline Par. Sch. Bd., 499 So. 2d 1067 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1986),

and the record supports he has failed to do. On the contrary, the OPPJ

submitted multiple exhibits to the trial court which showed several postings

throughout Linn’s place of employment reflecting the one-year period in

which to file a claim in full compliance with the provisions of La. R.S.

23:1031.1(I).

CONCLUSION

We affirm the decision granting the Ouachita Parish Police Jury’s

exception of prescription dismissing Montreal Linn’s claim for workers’

compensation benefits. All costs are assessed to Linn to the extent allowed

by La. C.C.P. art. 5188.

AFFIRMED.

5