Worker’s Comp Death Benefits Claim Survives Dismissal

Until recently, tort claims in Louisiana were subject to a one-year prescriptive period.* In Carollo v. Tulane Univ., the plaintiff’s claim was subject to that one-year prescriptive period, but she filed her suit more than one year after she was injured. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as prescribed. In so holding, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that her execution of a waiver form prevented her from timely filing suit for her alleged injuries.

The plaintiff was a member of Tulane’s Swim and Dive Team. As a team member, she signed Tulane’s Concussion Education Form, which concluded with the following statement: “I understand that this release means that, among other things, I am giving up my right to sue the institution for any such losses, damages, injury, or costs that I may incur.” Plaintiff sustained a concussion during practice on January 9, 2021. In her Petition, she alleged she discovered the full extent of her injuries on August 5, 2021. However, she did not file suit until February 17, 2023, which was beyond the one-year prescription period.

When a claim is prescribed on the face of the petition, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove her claim is not prescribed. Carollo first argued (1) the Concussion Education Form was a contract, (2) her claim arose from that contract, and (3) personal claims under contracts should be subject to a ten-year prescriptive period under La. C.C. art. 3499. The court rejected this argument because the concussion form did not meet the requirements for a valid contract under Louisiana law.

The plaintiff then argued that the doctrine of contra non valentem should apply. This doctrine provides “prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the facts upon which their cause of action is based and applies an exception to the statutory prescriptive period where in fact and for good cause a plaintiff is unable to exercise his cause of action when it accrues.”

Contra non valentem can apply when there is some condition coupled with a contract that prevented the plaintiff from filing suit. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments asserting this theory. Even if Carollo could establish a contract with Tulane under the concussion form, she could not point to any physical, mental, or procedural condition that prevented her from investigating her tort claims and filing suit against it.

Contra non valentem can also apply when the defendant does some act effectually to prevent the plaintiff from availing herself from her cause of action. The plaintiff argued that she was forced to sign the concussion form as a member of the Swim and Dive Team and that the form prevented her from filing suit within the prescriptive period. The court also rejected this argument, holding the plaintiff “knew about her concussion related injuries but did not perform her due diligence within the prescriptive period to determine whether she could file suit.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s execution of a waiver form stating she agreed not to sue the defendant for injuries could not interrupt prescription for the plaintiff’s claim.

*La. C.C. art. 3493.1, which went into effect on July 1, 2024, now provides delictual actions/tort claims are subject to a liberative prescription of two years.

References:

Carollo v. Tulane Univ., 2024-0038 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/9/25), --- So.3d ---, 2025 WL 52557.

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/.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that the workers' compensation tort immunity provided by LSA-R.S. 23:1032 does not apply to suits by one volunteer fireman against another volunteer. See Champagne v. American Alternative Insurance Corp., 12-1697 (La. 3/19/13), -- So.3d ---. LSA-R.S. 23:1036 provides that workers' compensation is the sole and exclusive remedy provided to a volunteer fireman against a fire company. Champagne clarified that this immunity does not similarly apply to claims for personal injury brought by one volunteer fireman against another.

The last sentence of LSA- R.S. 23:1036(A) states as follows:

The remedies provided herein shall constitute the exclusive remedy of the volunteer member against the fire company as provided in R.S. 23:1032.

In Champagne, the attorney for the defendants argued that the legislature's incorporation of LSA-R.S. 23:1032 reflected the intent to extend immunity beyond the language provided by LSA-R.S. 23:1036(A). The defendants asserted that this last sentence has internal inconsistencies; the first portion of the sentence "standing in isolation, can be read to limit workers' compensation immunity solely to the fire company, whereas its last phrase specifically incorporates La. R.S. 23:1032, which applies workers' compensation tort immunity to officers and employees of the employer or principal." Defendants further argued that, "to not include co-volunteers as co-employees under La. R.S. 23:1032 is to render the phrase, 'as provided in La. R.S. 23:1032,' superfluous and meaningless."

The Supreme Court disagreed with the defendants' statutory interpretation arguments. The Court stated: "[t]he fundamental question in all cases of statutory construction is legislative intent and the reasons that prompted the legislature to enact the law." In assessing the legislative intent, the Court gave a "narrow construction" of the statute because the statute sought to provide immunity in derogation of "the delictual rights of injured workers existing in the Louisiana Civil Code." Under this narrow construction, "every presumption should be on the side of preserving the general tort or delictual rights of an injured worker..."

Utilizing a narrow (or "strict") construction of LSA-R.S. 23:1036, the Court found that the legislature did not expressly provide immunity to volunteer firemen. Further, the Court did not find intent to provide such immunity in the legislative history.

Champagne is not the first time a Louisiana court has commented on the application of Louisiana's Workers' Compensation Law to volunteer firemen. In 1994, the First Circuit held that a volunteer fireman was not an "employee" of the fire district and therefore was not eligible for workers' compensation benefits. See Genusa v. Pointe Coupee Volunteer Fire Dist. No. 4, 93-2214 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/7/94); 644 So.2d 851. The Genusa Court reasoned that workers' compensation did not apply when there was no employer-employee relationship, and that an employer-employee relationship does not exist without compensation.

The Champagne Court expressed its belief that LSA-R.S. 23:1036 was likely enacted in response to Genusa. However, the statute only granted volunteer members of fire companies "some workers' compensation benefits" and did not change "the law to define a volunteer member... as an 'employee' of the fire company for the purposes of immunity under the workers' compensation law." Emphasis added.

Both the Supreme Court and the appellate court in Champagne observed that a denial of immunity to volunteer firemen "may make members of the community reluctant to act as volunteers at their local department." However, the legislature did not clearly provide for such immunity according to Champagne. It would not be surprising to see the Louisiana legislature address the issue of immunity for volunteer firemen moving forward.