Ron Williams Construction, Inc. v. Kenneth Jones

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-113

RON WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC.

VERSUS

KENNETH JONES

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 3
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 11-08819
SAM L. LOWERY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE
**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Elizabeth A. Pickett,
and John E. Conery, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Daniel Frazier Jr.
Frazier Law Offices, PLC
P. O. Box 1748
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
(225) 938-3506
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Kenneth Jones

David Laine Morgan
Stockwell, Sievert, et al.
P.O. Box 2900
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(337) 436-9491
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Ron Williams Construction, Inc.

PICKETT, Judge.

Kenneth Jones appeals the workers’ compensation judge’s (WCJ) judgment

dismissing his claim for benefits against his employer, Ron Williams Construction,

Inc. (RWC).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Kenneth Jones alleged he injured his lower back while in the course and

scope of his employment with Williams on June 20, 2011. RWC paid Jones’

medical bills and workers’ compensation benefits through the trial of this matter.

After Zurich American Insurance (Zurich), RWC’s workers’ compensation insurer,

investigated the claim, RWC filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation on October

28, 2011. In their claim to the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC), RWC

alleged that Jones made material misrepresentations regarding his past medical

history such that he forfeited his rights to workers’ compensation benefits pursuant

to La.R.S. 23:1208 and 23:1208.1. Throughout the claim and pre-trial brief, RWC

categorizes Jones’ injury as “alleged,” though there is no indication in the record

that they seek termination of benefits because Jones lied about his injury or the

circumstances giving rise to the injury.

Following a hearing on July 9, 2012, the WCJ took the matter under

advisement. On August 27, 2012, the WCJ issued oral reasons for ruling, wherein

he determined that Jones lacked credibility and failed to prove that an accident

occurred in the course and scope of his employment. A judgment terminating

Jones’ benefits was signed on August 31, 2012. Jones now appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Jones asserts two assignments of error:

1. The lower court erred when it ignored the WCA-WC-1008, the Pre-
Trial Statements, the trial stipulations of the parties, and rendered a
decision contrary to said documents and stipulations on an issue that
was not contested and on which no evidence was submitted by either
party.

2. The lower court erred in its failure to address the issues presented for
adjudication by the parties and in not determining that Appellant made
no material misrepresentation in violations of La.R.S. 23:1208 and
1208.1.

DISCUSSION

We find the WCJ erred by reaching an issue not properly before him. In its

pretrial statement, Willams states:

The sole issue to be litigated at this time is whether Kenneth
Jones made material misrepresentations and/or omissions as
contemplated by La.R.S. 23:1208 and 1208.1 such that he shall have
forfeited his right to any and all workers compensation benefits under
the Act. RWC reserves the right to assert that all of Mr. Jones’
alleged injuries pre-existed his employment with RWC such that
RWC is not responsible for any workers compensation benefits under
the Act.

While the record before us shows that RWC did not stipulate that Jones sustained a

workplace accident or suffered injuries therefrom, it was not the issue presented to

the WCJ for adjudication. The testimony and documentary evidence presented at

the hearing before the WCJ all concerned the alleged misrepresentations and

omissions made by Jones on his Second Injury Fund Questionnaire and to the

physician who performed his pre-employment physical.

In his oral reasons for ruling, the WCJ discusses the evidence presented. He

finds that Jones lacked credibility, and therefore he must not have been truthful

about the accident giving rise to his claim. The WCJ, therefore, found that Jones

benefits should be terminated because there was no compensable accident. As a

2

result of the WCJ’s ruling, Jones has been denied the opportunity to present

evidence supporting his claim. Other than the date and time of the unwitnessed

incident, Jones was not even asked about the circumstances giving rise to his

alleged injury. We find the trial court erred when he failed to rule on the issues

presented at the hearing, i.e., the alleged material misrepresentations of Jones in

violation of La.R.S. 23:1208 and 1208.1. The WCJ’s judgment is reversed, and the

case is remanded for a proper disposition of the issues before the court and such

other issues as may be properly presented by the parties at trial.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Ron

Williams Construction, Inc.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

3