Louisiana Foreman Awarded Benefits for Heat Exhaustion in Spite of Co-Morbid Condition

A Louisiana appellate court affirmed an award of indemnity benefits, medical expenses, $6,000 in penalties, and $9,500 in attorney’s fees to a foreman who sustained two heat exhaustion episodes in the course and scope of his employment [Woodard v. Chicago Bridge & Iron, 19-891 (La.App. 3 Cir. 07/22/20), 2020 La. App. LEXIS 1101 (July 22, 2020)]. The court brushed aside the employer’s argument that the foreman’s fainting episodes were actually due to co-morbid conditions — the foreman suffered from a congenital single kidney and took medications to preserve that kidney’s function. Finding the employer had not reasonably controverted the claim, it not only affirmed the award of benefits, but it sustained the penalty and attorney’s fees added by the WCJ.

Background

Claimant served as a foreman for the employer, earning $35.50 per hour. He generally worked 60-70 hours per week. He had a congenital single kidney and was prescribed 10 mg of Lisinopril daily to preserve the function of that kidney. He later testified that he never had any problems working while on the medication and further, he worked successfully in his capacity as foreman for one year while taking the medication with no problems at work.

One day, during May 2017, Claimant passed out after working approximately three hours. He had consumed two bottles of water, which was his standard practice due to his kidney issue. He was taken to a medical clinic and then to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with dehydration and heat exhaustion. He was treated with fluids and released. The employer would not allow him to return to work, however, until he was cleared by a cardiologist. Ten days after the initial incident, he saw a cardiologist. By that time, Claimant had experienced additional syncopal episodes and admitted that he passed out at home on one occasion after the initial incident.

After running tests on Claimant during the next couple of months, on July 21, 2017, the cardiologist released Claimant to return to work with no restrictions. The physician indicated he had found no cardiac issues. Yet, one day after returning to work, Claimant again experienced faintness and dizziness and was taken to a hospital by ambulance, where he was again diagnosed with dehydration and heat exhaustion. He was again given fluids and again discharged.

Claimant’s primary care physician advised Claimant that he could return to work, but he would not be able to work in the heat. The employer indicated it could not accommodate the medical restrictions and terminated Claimant. One month later, Claimant obtained another construction job, working in climate-controlled machinery, but for less hourly pay and fewer weekly hours. Claimant subsequently filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation, contending he was due indemnity benefits and medical benefits, as well as penalties and attorneys fees, due to the employer’s arbitrary and capricious handling of his claim.

Following a trial, the trial, the WCJ found that Claimant had carried his burden of proving that he was injured during the course and scope of his employment. In particular, the WCJ found Claimant’s testimony reliable and credible and, based on the testimony of Claimant’s physicians, the WCJ found a strong connection between Claimant’s medical condition and the work conditions. The employer appealed.

Co-Morbidities

The employer contended Claimant had not sustained an injury in the course and scope of the employment, that there was ample evidence at trial that Claimant’s syncopal episodes could be due to co-morbidities, and that more than likely, one of them caused Claimant’s issues, not the employment conditions.

Appellate Court’s Decision

The appellate court acknowledged the employer’s argument, but noted that all of the medical providers had opined that Claimant had dehydration and heat exhaustion. Moreover, the employer offered no evidence to contradict Claimant’s version of events or the diagnosis listed in his medical records. The court stressed, therefore, there was no reason to disturb the WCJ’s findings.

The court also found there was ample evidence to support the WCJ’s award of wage differential payments, based on Claimant’s decrease in earnings after his termination. The employer failed to offer Claimant a job which fit his medical restrictions and failed to offer any vocational rehabilitation services to identify suitable employment as mandated by La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1226.

Penalties and Attorney Fees

The WCJ awarded Claimant $6,000 in penalties and $9,500 in attorney’s fees. The employer contended this was error because the claim for benefits was reasonably controverted. According to the court, once Claimant was restricted from his employment, the employer had a duty to either pay Supplemental Earnings Benefits to Claimant or to initiate VR services. It did neither. Moreover, an employee’s right to benefits will be considered to be reasonably controverted when the employer or his insurer had sufficient factual information to reasonably counter the factual information presented by the claimant. The employer, however, had not offered an argument setting forth any factual information that might suggest that Claimant’s right to benefits had been reasonably controverted. Instead, it only argued that the evidence did not justify an award of penalties and attorneys fees. As such, the court agreed with the WCJ’s imposition of penalties and attorneys fees.