Louisiana Plaintiff’s Civil Action Against Company Barred by Workers’ Comp Settlement

A Louisiana appellate court held a plaintiff could not maintain a tort action against a defendant where the plaintiff and the defendant had settled a workers’ compensation action that involved the same transaction or occurrence. She could not argue that she was not an employee of the defendant when the settlement agreement and the release she had signed in the workers’ compensation proceeding acknowledged her employment status [Lewis v. Wieber, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 1094, 2021-0476 (La.App. 4 Cir. 07/06/22)]. Moreover, since the workers’ compensation judge had signed a dismissal order involving her claim, and the plaintiff had not appealed that order, the doctrine of res judicata prevented her from re-litigating the issues.

Background

In December 2018, defendant Wieber drove her vehicle into a tractor-trailer rig, driven by plaintiff Rico Lewis ("Mr. Lewis") and in which Mr. Lewis’ wife, Mrs. Lewis, was a passenger. The tractor-trailer rig was leased by Acme. As a result of the accident, both Mr. and Mrs. Lewis claimed they suffered bodily injuries. The Lewises filed a workers' compensation claim against Acme and its insurer, Continental Indemnity Company for benefits for injuries they allegedly sustained in connection with the December 2018 accident. Later, the Lewises filed a separate civil action, asserting negligent tort claims against Wieber and Acme.

While the civil action was pending, a Joint Petition to Compromise the workers’ compensation claim on behalf of Mrs. Lewis. In conjunction with the Petition, Mrs. Lewis signed a Release, setting her workers’ compensation claim against Acme for $35,000 in exchange for a release of all claims against Acme. The workers’ compensation judge subsequently approved the compromise and settlement and entered a judgment of dismissal. Mrs. Lewis did not appeal the judgment of dismissal.

Trial Court Grants Acme Summary Judgment

Thereafter, Acme filed a motion for summary judgment in the civil suit, alleging Mrs. Lewis’ tort claims should be dismissed because: (1) as an employee of Acme, Mrs. Lewis’ exclusive remedy against Acme was in workers’ compensation; and (2) the approved settlement in the workers’ compensation case was dispositive of the issue of Mrs. Lewis’ employment status; therefore, res judicata barred Mrs. Lewis from pursuing a tort action against Acme. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. Mrs. Lewis appealed.

Appellate Court Decision

The appellate court noted that in her workers’ compensation proceedings, Mrs. Lewis obtained a settlement from Acme based on her admission that she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident. In the civil suit, however, Mrs. Lewis took the contrary position that at the time of the accident, she was not acting within the course of her employment with Acme, but merely accompanying her husband. Acme asserted that the Petition for Compromise, the Release, and Mrs. Lewis’ Answers to Interrogatories established that she “unequivocally” stated she was in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident.

The appellate court stressed that, as a matter of policy, to permit an employee to recover against her employer pursuant to the workers’ compensation act by way of settlement, and then later dispute her employment status for the purpose of recovering additional damages in tort offered no incentive for employers to settle an employee’s workers’ compensation claim. Additionally, such a scenario frustrated the legal efficacy of the law of compromise and settlement. Mrs. Lewis’ remedy was limited to workers' compensation. She was precluded from asserting claims against Acme in tort when she entered into the court approved settlement.

Tort Action Also Barred by Res Judicata

The court also said the record reflected that the requirements of res judicata had been satisfied in the case considering:

• The judgment approving the settlement was a valid and final judgment; the parties are the same;
• The causes of action asserted in the present tort action existed on the date of settlement, when the workers’ compensation judge issued the judgment of dismissal in the first litigation filed by Mrs. Lewis; and
• The causes of action asserted in the tort litigation arose out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of the workers’ compensation suit.

Accordingly, the court found the trial court had not erred when it determined that res judicata precluded Mrs. Lewis from asserting a claim in tort. The trial court’s decision granting Acme summary judgment was affirmed.