Shelton v. Smitty's Supply, Inc.
Shelton v. Smitty's Supply, Inc., 256 So. 3d 258 (La. 2018).
Cited by
- Andre Lee v. Smitty's Supply, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
- Wanda Anderson v. Guzzino Commercial, LLC. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
- Thomas Southern v. Servpro D E Investments and LWCC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
- Keith L. Young v. Smitty's Supply, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
- Jamilyn Calhoun v. Sanderson Farms, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
- Jeanne Terrebonne v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
- Robert Broussard and R.J. Broussard General Contractors Inc. v. Multi-Chem Group, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
- Musson Patout Automotive Group v. Jimmy Maynard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
- Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
- Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
- Adams v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. 273 So. 3d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Opinion text
I would grant the writ application in part for the reasons assigned by Judge McDonald. Specifically, I disagree with the lower courts' findings that defendant did not reasonably controvert plaintiff's claim for disputed compensation, where defendant presented a surveillance video arguably showing inconsistencies in plaintiff's version of events, medical records countering *259 a work-related accident, and confirmation of those medical records by a doctor in his deposition. Thus, I agree with Judge McDonald that defendant did reasonably controvert plaintiff's claim in this instance through its factual and medical evidence, and plaintiff is not entitled to the award of penalties and attorney's fees as awarded by the court below. See La. R.S. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) ("[t]his Subsection shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control."). In all other respects, I would deny this application.