One Particular Mosquito: West Nile Virus Found to be a Compensable Workers’ Compensation Claim

In Louisiana, workers compensation benefits can beowed if an employee sustains an accident or develops an occupational diseasearising out of and occurring during the course and scope of theiremployment. The definitions and burdens of proof differ for each.

An accident is defined by La. R.S. 23:1021 as:

(1) “Accident” means an unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable,precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault,and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which ismore than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.

An occupational disease is defined by La. R.S.23:1031.1 as:

B. An occupational disease means only that disease or illnesswhich is due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to theparticular trade, occupation, process, or employment in which the employee isexposed to such disease. Occupational disease shall include injuries due towork-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Degenerative disc disease, spinalstenosis, arthritis of any type, mental illness, and heart-related or perivasculardisease are specifically excluded from the classification of an occupationaldisease for the purpose of this Section.

C. Notwithstanding the limitations of Subsection B hereof, everylaboratory technician who is disabled because of the contraction of anydisease, diseased condition, or poisoning which disease, diseased condition, orpoisoning is a result, whether directly or indirectly, of the nature of thework performed, or the dependent of a laboratory technician whose death is theresult of a disease, diseased condition, or poisoning, whether directly orindirectly, of the nature of the work performed shall be entitled to thecompensation provided in this Chapter the same as if said laboratory technicianreceived personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of hisemployment.

As used herein, the phrase “laboratory technician” shall mean anyperson who, because of his skills in the technical details of his work, isemployed in a place devoted to experimental study in any branch of the naturalor applied sciences; to the application of scientific principles ofexamination, testing, or analysis by instruments, apparatus, chemical orbiological reactions or other scientific processes for the purposes of thenatural or applied sciences; to the preparation, usually on a small scale, ofdrugs, chemicals, explosives, or other products or substances for experimentalor analytical purposes; or in any other similar place of employment.

Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection, any disabilityor death claim arising under the provisions of this Subsection shall be handledin the same manner and considered the same as disability or death claimsarising due to occupational diseases.

In general, if an employee can prove that they were exposed toCoronavirus at work, and that the particular exposure caused them to contractCoronavirus disease, they may be able to prove a compensable accident. The burden of proof is a tough one, of course, because it would seem to benearly impossible for an employee who contracts the Coronavirus to prove thecontraction resulted from work as opposed to exposure in some otherenvironment. However, it is important to note that one Louisiana courtdid find that a claimant was able to meet that burden when he contracted theWest Nile Virus by proving to the satisfaction of the Workers CompensationJudge, rather incredibly, that a particular mosquito bite occurring at work wasthe cause. Allen v. Graphic Packaging, 51,080 (La.App. 2^nd Cir. 1/11/17), 211 So.3d 1219. If a claimant isable to prove the occurrence of an accident, then the usual workerscompensation medical and indemnity benefits would be payable depending onmedical needs, disability status, or even death benefits if the employeeexpired as the result of such an accident.

For an employee to be able to prove that theircontraction of Coronavirus disease fits within the definition of anoccupational disease, they would have to prove that it was “due to causes andconditions characteristic of and peculiar to” their employment. Somehealthcare workers and others in related fields who become infected would seemto have an easier time proving their cases than others whose work would notcustomarily lead to such exposures. The definition above includeslaboratory technicians (which could be an expansive list as defined) whocontract a disease as the result exposure to something that they are workingon/with. The statute also provides some timing elements for claim filingand causation presumption, most of which would not seem to apply because ofnovel nature of the current Coronavirus outbreak. As with claims assertedas accidents, the usual medical and indemnity benefits would be payabledepending on the circumstances of the individual worker.

For additional details on the Allencase, please review Keogh Cox blog “One Particular Mosquito: West Nile Virus Foundto be a Compensable Workers’ Compensation Claim” by clicking here: https://keoghcox.com/one-particular-mosquito-west-nile-virus-found-compensable-workers-compensation-claim/.

Historians call it "The Grand Bargain." At its heart, the workers’ compensation law is a bargain, an exchange between the employer and the employee. In this bargain, the employee without having to prove his employer's negligence receives the benefit of continued income and medical treatment. In return, the employer, even if it is at fault, receives protection from tort suits. However, for this bargain to apply, the accident must have occurred within the "course and scope" of employment. But the question of when an accident is considered to have occurred in the "course and scope" is not always as simple to answer as it might otherwise appear.

The issue of course and scope has been litigated many times, in many forums. The recent decision in Jackie Holden v. Mike’s Catfish Inn, Inc. and Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, 2017 CA 1056 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/27/18) explores course and scope in the context of an employee who was on break.

In Holden, the plaintiff was "clocked in" and on the premises of her employer. When her daughter called and asked to meet her outside, the plaintiff took an employer-sanctioned work break, walked outside, and fell on the steps, causing injury to her left knee. She filed a tort suit against her employer alleging negligence for failing to remove a foreign substance which allegedly caused her to fall. The employer sought to dismiss the suit under the contention that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the fall was workers’ compensation.

The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by the employer's workers’ compensation protections and plaintiff appealed. The sole issue before the appellate court was whether the plaintiff was in the course and scope. Plaintiff argued that she was on break and had left her designated work duties to speak with her daughter such that her activities at the time of the fall were not work-related. The employer countered that plaintiff remained on the clock during her break and was on the employer’s premises when she fell.

In assessing course and scope, courts consider the time of the accident, the place where the accident occurred, and the employee’s activities at the time of the accident. “An accident occurs in the course and scope of employment when the employee sustains an injury while actively engaged in the performance of her duties during work hours, either on the employer’s premises or at other places where employment activities take the employee.” Holden at p. 6, citing, McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc., 02-1539 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So. 2d 1135.

In ruling against the plaintiff, the Holden court colorfully concluded:

"An employee who is getting paid, is on her employer’s premises, and is on an approved work break is in the course and scope of her employment whether she is visiting her daughter, getting a breath of fresh air, smoking a cigarette, or walking outside to drink a diet coke."

While workers’ compensation is a bargain, Holden reminds that it is a bargain workers will continue to try to escape.

Virginia “Jenny” McLin is a partner at Keogh Cox who practices in the fields of corporate litigation, insurance defense, and workers' compensation defense. When she is not practicing law, Jenny can be found volunteering with the Junior League of Baton Rouge; cheering for the LSU Tigers with her husband, Ryan; or shuffling her two kids to and from dance practice.

When an employee is injured on the job and the employee’s request for workers’ compensation benefits is disputed, La. R.S. 23:1201.1 allows an employer to request a preliminary determination hearing (“PDH”) with the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”). If the workers’ compensation judge rules at the PDH that benefits are owed, the employer has ten days to comply with the judge’s ruling. The First Circuit recently ruled that an employer can find “safe harbor” if it technically complies with the rigorous deadlines of the statute, which if missed can have profound consequences, subjecting the employer to penalties and attorney fees.

In Kilbourne v. Dixon Correctional Institute, the court recently affirmed a ruling that found an employer complied with La. R.S. 23:1201.1 and could not be subject to penalties or attorney’s fees when it mailed the disputed workers compensation benefits within ten days of the judge’s ruling at the PDH. The ruling was affirmed even though the employee did not receive payment within ten days of the hearing.

The employer in Kilbourne stopped issuing weekly workers compensation benefits after two doctors found the claimant’s ongoing complaints were unrelated to the work accident and the claimant could return to full duty work. The employee then filed a disputed claim with the OWC and requested reinstatement of his benefits. He also requested an award of penalties and attorney’s fees because he claimed the employer’s suspension of indemnity benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The employer requested a PDH to address these issues.

The OWC judge issued a preliminary determination that although the employee was owed supplemental benefits from the date his payments of benefits stopped, the employer was not arbitrary and capricious in its decision to stop payment. Within ten days of the mailing of the PDH ruling, the employer issued and mailed benefit checks to the employee and filed a form with the OWC to provide notice the employer was paying the benefits. Nevertheless, the employee disagreed with the PDH ruling and the matter went to trial.

At trial, the employee argued that he should have received penalties, attorney fees, and interest on the back benefits paid after the PDH ruling. The employee argued the employer failed to comply with section 1201.1 because he did not receive the indemnity benefits until more than ten days after the PDH ruling. However, evidence showed the benefit payments were postmarked and mailed within ten days of the receipt of PDH ruling.

Accordingly, the trial court found that the employer was immune from an award of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to the “safe harbor” provision of section 1201.1. Interest also could not be owed on back pay when the employer complied with the statute. The First Circuit affirmed this decision on appeal. Although providing the claimant funds within 10 days of the PDH ruling remains the best practice for an employer, this ruling informs employers that they should find safe harbor from what could be significant penalties and attorney’s fees if they meet the technical requirements of the statute and mail their compliance with the judge’s ruling within ten days of the PDH.

Case Reference: Kilbourne v. Dixon Correctional Institute, 2022-0455,(La. App. 1 Cir. 11/4/22) ____So. 3d ___,2022 WL 16706951.