David Leblanc v. Lafayette Consolidated Government

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-1608

DAVID LEBLANC

VERSUS

LAFAYETTE CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

************

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 4
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2006-03028
HONORABLE SHARON MORROW
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

************

JIMMIE C. PETERS
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Michael G. Sullivan, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Lawrence C. Billeaud
Attorney at Law
706 W. University Avenue
Lafayette, LA 70506
(337) 266-2055
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
David LeBlanc

Marc D. Moroux
Mahtook & LaFleur, LLC
Post Office Box 3089
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 266-2189
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Lafayette Consolidated Government

PETERS, J.

The plaintiff in this workers’ compensation case, Lafayette City Police Officer

David LeBlanc, appeals the workers’ compensation judge’s determination that his

claim for medical benefits against his employer, the Lafayette Consolidated

Government, had prescribed. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of

the workers’ compensation judge in all respects.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

There exists little dispute in the facts giving rise to this litigation. Officer

LeBlanc injured his right eye in August of 1996. The accident occurred while he was

in the course and scope of his employment with the Lafayette Consolidated

Government.

In that same year, Officer LeBlanc underwent a cornea transplant in the right

eye in an effort to repair the damage he sustained in the accident. The transplant

surgery took place in New Orleans, Louisiana, and he received follow-up care from

Dr. Harold LeDoux, an ophthalmologist in Lafayette, Louisiana. When Officer

LeBlanc saw Dr. LeDoux on October 1, 2002, for his periodic examination, the

doctor advised him that he should continue to have an annual checkup to check the

condition of the transplant. The Lafayette Consolidated Government paid for the

cornea transplant as well as the follow-up care provided by Dr. LeDoux as a workers’

compensation claim. The last payment, made on February 5, 2003, represented

payment for the October 1, 2002 consultation and examination.

Officer LeBlanc did not return to Dr. LeDoux for an annual checkup in October

of 2003, nor did he seek evaluation with any other physician. In fact, the next time

he saw a physician for difficulties with either eye was on August 2, 2004. On that

day, he presented himself to Dr. LeDoux with a complaint of infection in the left eye.

During his examination of the left eye, Dr. LeDoux also examined the status of the

cornea transplant in Officer LeBlanc’s right eye. Officer LeBlanc did not seek

payment of Dr. LeDeoux’s charges through his employer’s workers’ compensation

coverage. Instead, he completed an insurance claim form wherein he submitted the

claim through his group health insurance coverage provided to him by the Lafayette

Consolidated Government. In completing the claim form, he responded to the

question “IS THIS A WORK RELATED INJURY?” by checking the “No” box. The

claim form also had a section questioning whether the claimant had filed a workers’

compensation claim. Officer LeBlanc left that section blank. The Lafayette

Consolidated Government paid the claim through its group health plan.

In the early part of 2006, Officer LeBlanc began experiencing problems with

his cornea replacement and returned to Dr. LeDoux for evaluation and treatment. The

doctor saw Officer LeBlanc for his complaints five times, beginning on April 6, 2006,

and ending on November 1, 2006. Ultimately, Officer LeBlanc’s condition

deteriorated to the point that he required a second cornea transplant. When the

medical expenses were submitted to the Lafayette Consolidated Government as

workers’ compensation claims, all were denied. Instead, the Lafayette Consolidated

Government paid the claims through its group health plan, leaving Officer LeBlanc

with an unpaid balance of $3,690.69.

On May 12, 2006, Officer LeBlanc filed a disputed workers’ compensation

claim, alleging that his employer wrongfully denied him medical benefits and seeking

payment of those benefits, penalties, and attorney fees. The Lafayette Consolidated

Government responded to the claim with a peremptory exception of prescription.

Citing La.R.S. 23:1209(C), it asserted that because more than three years had lapsed

2

since it paid the last medical expense under its workers’ compensation coverage,

Officer LeBlanc’s claim for medical benefits had prescribed. Following a hearing on

the exception, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) agreed and granted its

exception of prescription. Officer LeBlanc has appealed that determination, asserting

two assignments of error:

1. The trial court committed legal error when it granted employer’s
exception of prescription, where it was undisputed that the
employer paid for the medical treatment of a work related injury
less than three years before the filing of this workers’
compensation claim.

2. The trial court committed legal error insofar as it denied the claim
for out of pocket medical expenses of the claimant, as well as the
claim for penalties and attorney fees.

OPINION

Whether the trier of fact erred in granting a peremptory exception of

prescription is a question of law. Thus, we review the WCJ’s ruling on this issue to

determine whether its decision was legally correct. Trahan v. City of Crowley, 07-

266 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/07), 967 So.2d 557, writs denied, 07-2462 (La. 2/15/08),

976 So.2d 185 and 07-2471 (La. 2/15/08), 976 So.2d 187.

The WCJ found that Officer LeBlanc’s claim was prescribed under La.R.S.

23:1209(C), which provides:

All claims for medical benefits payable pursuant to R.S. 23:1203
shall be forever barred unless within one year after the accident or death
the parties have agreed upon the payments to be made under this
Chapter, or unless within one year after the accident a formal claim has
been filed with the office as provided in this Chapter. Where such
payments have been made in any case, this limitation shall not take
effect until the expiration of three years from the time of making the last
payment of medical benefits.

(Emphasis added.)

3

The record establishes without dispute that the last payment by the Lafayette

Consolidated Government under its workers’ compensation coverage was made

February 5, 2003. Thus, more than three years had lapsed since that payment and the

April 6, 2006 visit by Officer LeBlanc to Dr. LeDoux. This fact notwithstanding,

Officer LeBlanc argues that the payments under the group health plan provided to

him by his employer constitute a “payment of medical benefits” within the meaning

of La.R.S. 23:1209(C). We disagree.

The supreme court has consistently held that “[t]he starting point for the

interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself.” Boquet v. Tetra

Techs., Inc., 02-1634, p. 7 (La. 2/25/03), 839 So.2d 13, 17. The function of the court

is to interpret the law so as to give it the meaning that the legislature obviously

intended it to have and not to construe it so as to give it an absurd or ridiculous

meaning. Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, 01-3276 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 486.

In looking at the language of La.R.S. 23:1209(C), we initially note that it

relates specifically to claims for medical benefits that might be payable pursuant to

La.R.S. 23:1203—the statute that establishes an employer’s obligation in workers’

compensation to pay an injured employee’s medical expenses. Thus, when La.R.S.

23:1209(C) speaks of “such payments” made or not made within the three year

prescriptive window, it refers to payments made pursuant to an employer’s obligation

under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act, and not to payments such as those

made here pursuant to a group health plan. See Blanchard v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,

280 So.2d 592 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1973). Because the Lafayette Consolidated

Government last paid benefits under its workers’ compensation obligation on

4

February 5, 2003, Officer LeBlanc’s claims for payment of medical benefits due

under workers’ compensation prescribed on February 5, 2006.

We affirm the WCJ’s grant of the exception of prescription. Because we do so,

we do not need to address Officer LeBlanc’s second assignment of error.

DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the workers’

compensation judge granting the exception of prescription filed by the Lafayette

Consolidated Government and dismissing the claims of the plaintiff, David LeBlanc.

We assess all costs on appeal to David LeBlanc.

AFFIRMED.

5