La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1201

Section 23:1201 ties compensation-payment timing to the times and places wages were payable and permits the parties to agree to a longer interval, up to one month, without court approval.

Cole v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · filed 1980-10-08

We find no merit in appellant’s argument that the agreement of the parties that compensation be paid monthly rather than weekly, pursuant to Section 1201, somehow deprives plaintiff-appellee of the benefit of Section 1333. Under Section 1201 payments of compensation are paid as near as may be, at the times and places as wages were payable to the injured employee before the accident. Plaintiff was paid his wages weekly, therefore he was to be paid compensation weekly. He and his employer agreed, subsequent to rendition of the 1976 judgment, that the weekly compensation installments would be accumulated and paid monthly.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) excuses penalties and attorney fees only when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim or the nonpayment results from conditions beyond its control.

Ardoin v. GROCERY · filed 2002-04-17(F)(2)

In order to reasonably controvert a workers' compensation claim, an employer must have factual or medical information of such a nature that it reasonably counters that provided by claimant. ... The Defendant presents no evidence whatsoever which reasonably controverts the fact that Ms. Ardoin suffered a work-related accident. ... Under these circumstances, we are compelled to find that the WCJ committed manifest error in failing to provide penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201 requires statutory penalties when covered workers’ compensation benefits are not timely paid.

Pierce v. City of Abbeville · filed 1992-06-24

We agree that, under the mandate of La.R.S. 23:1201, penalties should be awarded on the $3,521.21 of back benefits paid by defendant to plaintiff prior to trial and on the award of temporary total benefits of $398.94 for the period of November 28, 1988.

Section 23:1201(A) requires compensation payments to be made as nearly as possible when and where the employee’s wages were paid before the injury, but permits the parties to agree to payment intervals of up to one month without the Director’s approval.

Ringo v. Hawco Manufacturing · filed 1991-06-27(A)

The act requires that payments be made as nearly as possible to the time and place of payment of the employee’s wages prior to the injury, but allows for a longer interval by agreement (up to one month) without the approval of the Director. La. R.S. 23:1201(A).

Section 23:1201 provides penalties when an employer or compensation insurer fails to make timely compensation payments.

Libasci v. Longo · filed 1992-02-13(E)

La.R.S. 23:1201 provides for penalties when an employer or compensation insurer fails to make timely compensation payments. For the reasons mentioned above, we cannot say the trial court erred in failing to assess penalties for Commercial’s failure to pay the admittedly incorrect amount recommended by the OWC A, instead of paying the correct amount, $212.34 per week.

Subsection (B) makes the first workers' compensation installment due 14 days after the employer learns of the employee's injury.

Martin v. Midas Muffler Shop · filed 1988-11-30(B)

The first installment of worker's compensation is payable and due on the 14th day after the employer has knowledge of the employee's injury. La.R.S. 23:1201(B).

Section 23:1201(E) permits penalties and attorney fees when workers’ compensation benefits are arbitrarily and capriciously denied.

Troutman v. Hart · filed 2003-04-02(E)

La. R.S. 23:1201(E) allows for an award of penalties and attorney fees to a workers’ compensation claimant that has been arbitrarily and capriciously denied benefits.

Section 23:1201(D) makes permanent-partial-disability installments due on the thirtieth day after the employer or insurer receives a medical report notifying it of the disability, with all compensation then due payable that day.

Dordain v. Anthony Seafood & Lobster House · filed 2003-11-05(D)

Installment payments payable pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1221(4) shall become due on the thirtieth day after the employer or insurer receives a medical report giving. notice of the permanent partial disability on which date all such compensation then due shall be paid.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees for an employer’s failure to pay compensation, but they are not awarded when the employer reasonably seeks judicial resolution of a close factual dispute.

Moore v. Pitt Grill · filed 2004-03-24(F)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), an employer’s failure to pay compensation results in the assessment of a penalty as well as reasonable attorney fees for the disputed claims. ... In this matter Pitt Grill relied on opinions from their expert witnesses, and, while we find that Ms. Moore has met her burden of proving that her injury could have resulted from the workplace accident, the WCJ found she had not. The issue before us has enough merit that we are unable to say the defendants were unreasonable in seeking judicial review. Therefore, we are unwilling to award penalties or attorney fees in this matter.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars attorney fees when the employer reasonably controverts the claim with sufficient factual and medical information.

Masters v. Fontenot · filed 2004-02-04(F)(2)

Dr. Goldware’s opinion is sufficient to reasonably controvert the claim. Therefore, attorney fees are not payable under La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to comply with the statutory payment schedules.

Lanclos v. Coastal Food, LLC. · filed 2004-07-07(F)

La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that penalties and attorney’s fees may be imposed when an employer or its insurer fails to comply with the payment schedules outlined in the various subsections of La.R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) imposes penalties on an employer or insurer that withholds compensation or medical benefits without evidence sufficient to reasonably controvert the employee’s entitlement.

Town of Grand Isle v. Eschette · filed 2002-05-29(F)(2)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2), an employer or insurer is liable for penalties for withholding benefits without evidence to "reasonably controvert" the employee's right to compensation and medical benefits. ... Having reviewed the record, we cannot say Grand Isle behaved in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes a penalty when an employer fails to reasonably controvert an employee’s entitlement to benefits, but the penalty does not apply to a non-frivolous legal dispute.

Manino v. Ten (10) Minute Oil Change · filed 2002-08-21(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for a penalty when it is established that the employer failed to reasonably controvert the employee’s entitlement to benefits. Construing the phrase “reasonably controvert,” the Louisiana Supreme Court held it means “the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.” Brown v. Texas-La. Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 890. This penalty provision does not apply when the employer “engaged in non-frivolous legal dispute.” Id. Given this was a “non-frivolous legal dispute” over the reverse offset calculation, the WCJ thus did not err in refusing to impose a penalty.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) allows a workers’ compensation claimant to recover penalties and attorney fees when benefits are withheld without reasonably controverting the claim.

Mitchell v. Winnfield Holding Corp. · filed 2003-12-17(F)(2)

Likewise, we find LWCC could have inquired from their insured about Mr. Mitchell’s part-time as well as full-time employment. Additionally, Ms. Robinson could have obtained the advice of counsel before interpreting the provisions of the workers’ compensation act on her own. Under the circumstances, we find Mr. Mitchell is entitled to penalties and attorney fees for LWCC’s failure to reasonably controvert his claim.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits penalties and attorney fees when the employer and insurer did not controvert entitlement to benefits and further medical information was needed to determine the claimant’s condition.

Butler v. New Orleans Paddlewheels · filed 2003-12-10(F)(2)

In the present case, the claimant’s entitlement to penalties and attorney’s fees was not controverted by the employer and insurer pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201. Further medical information was required to make an exact determination of the claimant’s condition. We cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong in finding that the employer and insurer acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to pay benefits to the claimant, and in refusing to allow the claimant to undergo additional testing and to be examined by a specialist.

Section 23:1201(F) places the burden on a claimant to prove entitlement to penalties for an employer’s untimely refusal or failure to pay workers’ compensation benefits, while an employer and insurer can avoid penalties and attorney fees by reasonably controverting the claim with factual and medical evidence.

Landry v. Furniture Center · filed 2006-01-11(F)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), a claimant in a workers’ compensation claim has the burden of proving his entitlement to statutory penalties for the employer’s refusal or failure to timely pay workers’ compensation benefits. To avoid the imposition of penalties and attorney fees, the employer and its insurer must provide factual and medical evidence to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim.

Section 23:1201(F) requires a penalty for failure to pay workers’ compensation benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim or lacked control over the nonpayment; a claim is reasonably controverted only when the employer has not engaged in a frivolous dispute or has sufficient factual or medical information to counter the claim.

Hunter v. Alliance Compressors · filed 2006-06-21(F), (F)(2)

The failure to pay SEB, according to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), "shall result in the assessment of a penalty in an amount up to the greater of twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits, or fifty dollars per calendar day for each day in which any and all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid. . . ." The fifty dollars per calendar day penalty is limited to a maximum of two thousand dollars in the aggregate for any claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). The penalty for such a violation, consequently, must be assessed unless the employer reasonably controverts the employee's claim or proves that it had no control over the nonpayment. ... An injured worker's claim is considered reasonably controverted when a court determines that the employer or insurer has not engaged in a frivolous legal dispute or that the employer or insurer possessed factual and/or medical information sufficient to reasonably counter that presented by the injured worker.

Section 23:1201(A) requires indemnity benefits to be paid on the same schedule as the employee’s wages.

Maricle v. Sunbelt Builders, Inc. · filed 2005-11-02(A)

Thus, a claimant who is paid on a weekly basis is entitled to receive indemnity benefits the same way he receives his paycheck.

Subsection (B) makes the first compensation installment due 14 days after the employer knows of the disabling injury, while subsection (F) permits penalties and attorney’s fees for untimely payment unless the nonpayment was beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control or the claim was reasonably controverted.

Payne v. Orleans Parish School Bd. · filed 2006-03-02(B), (F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(B) provides that the first installment of compensation benefits for temporary total disability, permanent total disability, or death shall become due the fourteenth day after the employer has knowledge of the injury giving rise to disability. La. R.S. 23:1201(F) further provides that if an installment of benefits is not timely paid within the 14 day period, "there shall be added to such unpaid installment a penalty of ... twelve percent thereof ... unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control," or unless "the employee's right to such benefits has been reasonably controverted by the employer."[1] Both penalties and attorney's fees are recoverable under La. R.S. 23:1201(F) if the employer or insurer fails to commence payments of compensation benefits timely or to pay continued installments timely (or to pay medical benefits timely) unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Subsection (F) places the burden on the claimant to prove entitlement to penalties for an employer's refusal or failure to timely pay workers' compensation benefits, while the employer and insurer avoid penalties and attorney fees by reasonably controverting the claim with factual and medical evidence.

Lebert v. McNeese State University · filed 2006-02-01(F)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), a claimant in a workers' compensation case has the burden of proving his entitlement to statutory penalties for the employer's refusal or failure to timely pay workers' compensation benefits. To avoid the imposition of penalties and attorney fees, the employer and its insurer must provide factual and medical evidence to reasonably controvert a workers' compensation claim.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties when workers' compensation benefits are denied without reasonable controversion, assessed by whether the employer or insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to counter the claimant's evidence.

Hosli v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. · filed 2007-04-11

The penalty provisions of Louisiana Revised Statute section 23:1201 are invoked if workers' compensation benefits are denied and the employer or his insurer did not reasonably controvert the employee's right to compensation. The test to determine whether the employee's right has been reasonably controverted turns on whether the employer or his insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant.

Section 23:1201 authorizes a penalty when an employer fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits that are due.

Cotten v. First Fleet · filed 2007-05-02

Mr. Cotton further asks that a penalty be awarded for the non-payment of benefits for that period. We agree that a penalty is due under the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1201. Therefore, we assess Defendants with a penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 for failure to pay the benefits due for August 5 through August 8, 2004.

Section 23:1201 permits a penalty for the nonpayment of workers’ compensation benefits due for a particular period.

Cherry Cotton v. First Fleet · filed 2007-05-02

Plaintiff further asks that a penalty be awarded for the non-payment of benefits for that period. We agree that a penalty is due under the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1201. Therefore, we assess Defendants with a penalty in the amount of $1,000.00for failure to pay the benefits due for the week of April 5 through April 11, 2004.

Section 23:1201 authorizes a penalty when an employer fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits that are due.

Cotton v. First Fleet · filed 2007-05-02

We agree that a penalty is due under the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1201.

Subsections (B) and (C) require temporary total disability and supplemental earnings benefits to be paid by the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer knows of the injury or compensable earnings.

Smith v. KINDER RETIREMENT AND REH. CENTER · filed 2007-04-04(B) and (C)

More specifically, payments for temporary total disability benefits are due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the injury, and supplemental earnings benefits are due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the compensable supplemental earnings. La.R.S. 23:1201(B) and (C).

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties for an employer’s failure to properly pay benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or resulted from conduct beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Trahan v. City of Crowley · filed 2007-10-03(F)

Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), penalties shall be awarded for an employer’s failure to properly pay benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or resulted from conduct over which the employer or insurer had no control. In order to reasonably controvert a claim, the employer must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base its denial of benefits. ... We find that the City did not reasonably controvert this claim. Therefore, we award Trahan a $2,000.00 penalty and will assess attorney fees for the City’s improper calculation of the AWW. ... Based upon these factual findings of the WCJ, we find that the City did not have a reasonable basis upon which to controvert the claim. Accordingly, we award Trahan a $2,000.00 penalty and will assess attorney fees for the City’s improper reduction of SEB.

Section 23:1201(F) requires a penalty and attorney fees when workers’ compensation benefits are not timely paid or are unreasonably suspended without a valid defense.

Elie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · filed 2006-09-27(F)

Therefore, the WCJ erred in failing to impose a $2,000.00 penalty and $2,000.00 in attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes a penalty up to the greater of twelve percent of unpaid compensation or medical benefits or fifty dollars per day, subject to the subsection’s $2,000 aggregate daily-penalty limit and $8,000 maximum for penalties imposed at a merits hearing.

Trahan v. TURNER INDUSTRIES, INC. · filed 2008-12-10(F)

As cited above, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) requires that a penalty should be assessed "in an amount up to the greater of twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits, or fifty dollars per calendar day for each day in which any and all compensation benefits remain unpaid...." (Emphasis added). Given the figures involved, it appears that the claimant's argument has merit insofar as the penalty for the nonpayment of indemnity benefits exceeds the two thousand dollar figure. We note that La.R.S. 23:1201(F) imposes a penalty of "twelve percent of any unpaid compensation." Therefore, we impose a penalty of twelve percent of the indemnity payments beginning on September 26, 2006, until paid. However, the total amount of penalties imposed, inclusive of the $2,000.00 imposed for failure to provide medical benefits, shall not exceed the statutory cap of $8,000.00.

Section 23:1201 makes an employer liable for penalties for withholding compensation and medical benefits without reasonably controverting the claim, and requires the first installment of compensation within fourteen days after the employer or insurer knows of the claimant’s injury or death.

Benoit v. Turner Industries Group, LLC · filed 2011-05-04(B)

An employer is liable for statutory penalties for withholding benefits without evidence to “reasonably controvert” the employee’s right to compensation and medical benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201. Section 1201(B) provides a specific time requirement for the first installment of compensation to be paid. Specifically, it provides that the first installment is due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the claimant’s injury or death.

Section 23:1201 requires the first TTD installment within 14 days after the employer or insurer learns of the injury, imposes penalties and reasonable attorney fees for untimely payment, and excuses those sanctions when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment was beyond the payer’s control.

Tingle v. Page Boiler, Inc. · filed 2016-01-13(B), (F), and (F)(2)

The first installment of compensation payable for TTD is due on the 14th day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the injury. La. R.S. 23:1201 B. Failure to provide this payment results in the assessment of a penalty of 12% of the claim or $50 per day unpaid, whichever is greater, but capped at $2,000 for each disputed claim, together with reasonable attorney fees. La. R.S. 23:1201 F. However, the penalty and attorney fee is not assessed if the claim is reasonably controverted • or if the nonpayment results from circumstances over which the employer or insurer had no control. La. R.S. 23:1201 F(2). To find that the employer or insurer reasonably controverted a claim, the WCJ must find that the payer “engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885; Morris v. Rent-A-Center Inc., 43,191 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/30/08), 981 So.2d 257.

Section 23:1201(E) requires medical benefits to be paid within sixty days after written notice, and the court applied subsection (D) to uphold penalties for an employer's failure to reasonably controvert a mileage-reimbursement claim.

Ebarb v. Boise Cascade Co. · filed 2016-07-13(E), (D)

The failure to provide medical treatment equates to a failure to provide medical benefits pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(E), which requires the payment of medical benefits within sixty days after written notice is received by the employer. ... Considering the evidence presented by Ms. Ebarb, which contained the number of miles she traveled for each appointment with Dr. Nunley, we find' that she presented sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim. Furthermore, Boise Cascade received notice of Ms. Ebarb’s request for reimbursement on June 2, 2014, and it had no knowledge or information with which to controvert her claim until August 18, 2014. Thus, we find that it was reasonable for the WCJ to find that Boise Cascade failed to reasonably controvert Ms. Ebarb’s claim; and we affirm the WCJ’s award of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(D).

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties for underpayment of workers’ compensation benefits when the employer fails to reasonably controvert the claim.

Leblanc v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2015-11-04(F)

The WCJ’s award of $2000.00 in penalties, pursuant to La R.S. 23:1201(F), for the underpayment of TTD benefits is affirmed.

Section 23:1201(G) imposes penalties and attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid for thirty days, but not when nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Ortega v. Cantu Servs., Inc. · filed 2018-05-02(G)

A final, nonappealable judgment includes a workers' compensation settlement agreement, and triggers La.R.S. 23:1201(G) upon court approval and entry into judgment. Williamson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 12-148 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/12), 92 So.3d 1218. ... Therefore, the WCJ did not err in concluding that Appellees were not required to pay Ms. Ortega the settlement funds prior to CMS approval of the MSA funding. Additionally, because we conclude nonpayment was the result of conditions over which the employer had no control, the WCJ did not err in denying statutory penalties and attorney fees, in this case, for Appellees' failure to pay the funds within thirty days of the final and nonappealable judgment.

Section 23:1201 requires penalties when installment supplemental earnings benefits are not paid within fourteen days after the employer or insurer knows they are due, unless the nonpayment was beyond its control or the employee’s right to benefits was reasonably controverted.

Miller v. Roger Miller Sand, Inc. · filed 1994-11-30(C), (E)

Statutory penalties shall be awarded if the employer or insurer fails to pay supplemental earnings benefits to the claimant within fourteen days after the employer or insurer has knowledge that compensable supplemental earnings benefits are payable, unless (1) such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer has no control, or (2) the employer or insurer has reasonably controverted the employee's right to such compensation or medical benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201.[8] Defendants do not claim, nor do the facts support the argument that disability benefits were not paid for reasons beyond the employer's or insurer's control. Therefore, we must determine whether the employee's right to disability benefits has been reasonably controverted by the employer or insurer. We find that it has not.

Section 23:1201(E) requires penalties for nonpayment of workers’ compensation benefits unless the nonpayment was caused by conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control or the employee’s entitlement was reasonably controverted.

Lacava v. Albano Cleaners · filed 1995-04-07(E)

An assessment of penalties for nonpayment of compensation benefits is proper unless the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer |7have no control or unless the employee’s right to such benefits has been reasonably controverted. La.R.S. 23:1201 E; Westley v. Land & Offshore, 533 So.2d 995, 997 (La. App. 1st Cir.1988).

Subsection (E) governs the penalty for benefits unpaid without an order, while subsection (F) provides 24% or $100-per-day penalties for judgment benefits not timely paid after a final, nonappealable judgment, and avoiding those penalties requires an unconditional tender.

Meche v. Foremost Management Corp. · filed 1995-10-04(E), (F)

Thus, Meche was not, and is not, entitled to 12% penalties for failure to pay benefits "without an order" under La.R.S. 23:1201(E). ... If payment of benefits under the terms of a judgment is not made within thirty days of when it is due, Meche is entitled to 24% penalties or $100.00 per day, whichever is greater, but payment is not due until after the judgment becomes final and nonappealable. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). The statute makes it very clear that the "penalty-free" time in which a defendant has to make payment is held in abeyance by an appeal. This is implicit in the words "final, nonappealable judgment," and explicit in the phrase "unless the order [of the hearing officer] is appealed as provided by law." Thus, penalties did not even come into play until after the judgment of this court became final and nonappealable under the rules of civil procedure. ... However, we agree that the hearing officer abused her discretion and that Meche is entitled to penalties under 23:1201(F) for not making payment timely after this court's judgment became final. Houston General's tender, as discussed above, was clearly conditional. No unconditional tender was ever made; thus, timely tender has never been made. To avoid penalties, there must be an unconditional tender.

Section 23:1201(E) imposes a penalty for an employer's failure to begin paying compensation within 30 days after benefits are due, unless the claim was reasonably controverted.

Carrier v. Debarge's College Junction · filed 1996-01-24(E)

An employer who fails to commence payment of compensation within 30 days after benefits are due is penalized 12% of the outstanding benefits, unless the employee's claim has been reasonably controverted. La.R.S. 23:1201(E).

Section 23:1201 requires workers' compensation penalties for unpaid benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Spencer v. Gaylord Container Corp. · filed 1997-05-28(E.)

Consequently, the "arbitrary and capricious" standard no longer applies to an award of penalties in a workers' compensation matter. Therefore, when payment is not made in accordance with La. R.S. 23:1201, penalties are imposed unless the employer or its insurer has "reasonably controverted" the compensation claim[12] or unless "such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control."

Section 23:1201 requires timely compensation payments and imposes penalties and attorney fees for noncompliance, subject to the reasonably controverted-claim exception.

Ricaud v. Holloway Sportswear, Inc. · filed 1999-05-26(A), (F), and (F)(2)

Despite Defendant’s act to remedy its calculation error and reimbursement to Plaintiff shortly after its initial payment, we find that Defendant clearly violated La.R.S. 23:1201 A which provides: ... An interval of more than one month must be approved by the director.

Section 23:1201(E) and (F) authorize penalties when an employer or insurer fails to timely provide medical benefits, including by failing to timely authorize necessary surgery.

George v. Guillory · filed 2000-11-02(E)(F)

Penalties are made available to employees under La.R.S. 23:1201. Penalties under La.R.S. 23:1201 are properly awarded when an employer or an insurer fails to pay medical benefits in a timely fashion. See La.R.S. 23:1201(E)(F). "The penal provisions of this state's workers' compensation act are applied not only against employers who untimely pay weekly benefits, but also against employers who fail to timely deliver competent medical attention. Savoy v. McDermott, Inc., 520 So.2d 888 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987); Dupre v. Sterling Plate Glass & Paint Co., 344 So.2d 1060 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 347 So.2d 246 (La.1977)." Foster v. Liberty Rice Mill, 96-438, p.13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96); 690 So.2d 792, 800. This court has found an award of penalties proper for an employer's failure to timely authorize a request for surgery. See Skipper v. Acadian Oaks Hosp., 00-67 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/3/00); 762 So.2d 122; Foster, 96-438; 690 So.2d 792. Here, LWCC failed to timely authorize a surgery needed by Mr. George, thereby failing to provide medical benefits due to him. At trial, LWCC failed to reasonably controvert Mr. George's request for surgical authorization. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly awarded penalities against LWCC under La.R.S. 23:1201. Therefore, we find that the trial court's award of penalties was proper.

Section 23:1201(F) requires the employee to prove entitlement to statutory penalties for the employer's failure to timely pay workers' compensation benefits.

Figueroa v. Hardtner Medical Center · filed 2002-01-25(F)

Regarding a claim under Section 1201(F), an employee has the burden of proving her entitlement to statutory penalties for the employer's failure to timely pay workers' compensation benefits. ... As such, we cannot say that claimant met her burden of proving that Hardtner's payments were untimely as provided by La. R.S. 23:1201(F).

Subsections (A) and (E) require timely payment of indemnity and medical benefits, and untimely payment supports penalties unless the claims were reasonably controverted.

Carradine v. Regis Corporation · filed 2010-11-03(A), (E)

The facts clearly establish that Regis did not pay either of these claims within the time limits required by La.R.S. 23:1201(A) and (E).

Section 23:1201 requires penalties and attorney's fees when an employer improperly calculates and pays workers' compensation benefits at an incorrect indemnity rate.

Pauley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2003-06-04

However, we do find manifest error with regard to its failure to pay the correct indemnity rate to Pauley from the date it commenced payment of benefits through August 13, 2001. Pauley received $123.90 per week in compensation benefits rather than $173.34 per week. In its brief, Wal-Mart states that Pauley "admitted that he knew that [it] was cutting back on hours because the store's payroll was too high." This is not a valid reason for failing to pay him at the correct rate. Pauley had no control over the number of hours Wal-Mart gave him each week, rather, this rested entirely within its control. Therefore, we find that the workers' compensation judge erred in failing to award him penalties and attorney's fees for Wal-Mart's miscalculation of his workers' compensation benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201. Accordingly, we award Pauley $2,000 in penalties and $5,000 in attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties when an employer’s unreasonable vocational rehabilitation leads it to reduce a claimant’s benefits.

Chelette v. Riverwood International USA, Inc. · filed 2003-04-30(F)

For these reasons, we find Riverwood was arbitrary and capricious in reducing Ms. Chelette's benefits, and hold that penalties are warranted. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court assessing $2,000.00 in penalties to Riverwood.

Section 23:1201(G) caps the $100-per-day penalty at $3,000 but does not cap the alternative 24% penalty.

Bordelon v. Inland Industrial Contractors · filed 2002-03-06(G)

We conclude that the $100.00 per day penalty provided for therein is limited to $3,000.00, but the 24% penalty is not.

Subsection (F) mandates the applicable penalty amounts under the provision.

Colonial Nursing Home v. Bradford · filed 2002-12-30(F)

The penalty amounts are mandated by La.R.S. 23:1201(F); and it was not error for the WCJ to enforce this provision.

Subsection (F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to timely pay workers' compensation benefits.

Jackson v. Conagra Poultry Co. · filed 2003-03-05(F)

We further find Ms. Jackson is entitled to both penalties and attorney fees for ConAgra's failure to timely pay benefits pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). We award penalties in the amount of $2,000.00 and attorney fees in the amount of $5,000.00 for work done at the trial and in this appeal.

Section 23:1201 authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay benefits without reasonably controverting the claim, and those penal provisions are strictly construed.

Gaspard v. Dollar General Corp. · filed 2003-04-02

Penalties and attorney fees do not automatically result from an employer’s erroneous failure to pay benefits. ... The statutes only authorize such penalties and attorney fees where the employer does not reasonably controvert the claim. ... A review of the record supports our conclusion that Dollar General did not reasonably controvert Ms. Gaspard’s assertion that it unreasonably failed to pay for prescribed medications. ... Therefore, pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201, we award Ms. Gaspard $2,000.00 in penalties, attorney fees of $3,000.00 for work done at trial and attorney fees of $2,000.00 for work done on this appeal.

Section 23:1201(E) requires penalties for nonpayment unless the employer reasonably controverts the employee’s right to benefits, which requires sufficient factual and medical information to counter the claimant’s information; reliance on a worthless labor-market survey did not meet that standard.

Federated Rural Electric v. Simmons · filed 1990-10-03(E)

On the other hand, penalties will be assessed against the employer for failure to pay benefits unless the employee’s right to such benefits has been reasonably controverted by the employer or his insurer. La.R.S. 23:1201(E). The test to determine whether the employer (insurer) has reasonably controverted the employee’s rights to benefits is whether the employer or his insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant. ... In December of 1987, before a decision on the declaratory judgment could be obtained, plaintiff unilaterally reduced benefits. The action was taken based upon the labor market survey conducted by Durlacher. For reasons discussed above, this Court is persuaded that Durlacher’s survey is patently without value. To rely upon it is arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause. The information contained in it does not reasonably controvert the employee’s right to benefits. For this reason the court awards both penalties and attorney’s fees for this unwarranted reduction. ... The 12% statutory penalties are assessed only on the amounts due because of the December 1987 reduction. ... We find no clear error in the trial court’s evaluation of Durlacher’s report or its conclusion that it was arbitrary and capricious to rely thereon in unilaterally reducing defendant’s benefits irrespective of how they characterized the benefits owed defendant.

Section 23:1201(F) requires a penalty for late payment of workers' compensation benefits, with the maximum penalty applying when payment is delayed for the period specified by the statute, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or another statutory exception applies.

Belaire v. Don Shetler Olds Buick Chevrolet · filed 2003-06-04(F)

The workers' compensation judge assessed Don Shetler a $1,500 penalty for the failure to timely pay the first installment of indemnity benefits. Don Shetler noticed the mistake on its own, not at the urging of Belaire or his counsel, and immediately paid the delinquency. It is evident that Don Shetler failed to make the payment as a result of its own carelessness. Therefore, given the mandatory nature of the penalty provision provided by La.R.S. 23:1201(F), we affirm the assessment of penalty for this mistake. However, we must amend the assessment and award $2,000 in penalties because the payment was due in September and not paid until April, thus requiring the maximum penalty under the statute.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim, or when nonpayment results from conditions outside its control.

Schindler v. ORLEANS REGIONAL SEC. · filed 2003-12-03(F)(2)

(2) This Subsection shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. ... After reviewing the evidence in the record, we cannot say the workers' compensation judge erred in assessing a $2,000.00 penalty against the LWCC and awarding Schindler attorney fees for failing to reasonably controvert the claim.

Section 23:1201(F) requires the penalty for unpaid compensation to be the greater of 12% of the unpaid amount or $50 per calendar day, subject to the statutory cap then in effect, unless the claim was reasonably controverted under § 23:1201(F)(2).

Cormier v. LOUISIANA SOUTHWEST SCRAP · filed 2004-12-01(F)(2), (F)

Since the statute requires the award of the higher penalty, we remand to the workers' compensation judge for calculation of 12% of the back compensation owed as the record is not clear concerning the time period for calculation.

Section 23:1201(F) permits a penalty up to the greater of twelve percent of unpaid compensation or $50 per calendar day, but the amount awarded remains within the workers’ compensation judge’s discretion.

Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2012-02-08(F)

However, the imposition of penalties falls within the WCJ’s discretion.

Section 23:1201(F) permits either the employee claimant or the health care provider, but not both for the same late payment, to recover a penalty, and bars the penalty when nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Russo v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans · filed 2002-03-06(F)(2), (F)(3)-(4)

Moreover, sub-subsection (4) does not state that only health care providers can recover a penalty for late payment of the health providers fees. ... The net result of these statutory amendments is that either the employee claimant or the health care provider, but not both as to the same late payment, may recover a late payment penalty. ... Consequently, if there is no claim by the health care provider so that the health care provider is not seeking a late payment penalty, then the claimant employee may seek the late payment penalty. If there is a claim by the health care provider, so that the health care provider might be awarded a late payment penalty, then the employee claimant may not seek the penalty. In short, only one penalty may be recovered, as per the last section of sub-subsection (4), and the employee claimant may seek that penalty unless the health care provider seeks it. ... The WCJ found that, because the S & WB decided to turn the medical bills over to the outside company, the late payment was not due to conditions over which the S & WB had no control. We agree and add that, based upon the record, there is no reason apparent that the S & WB could not keep track of the time that the outside company had the bills so that the S & WB could require their return in time to pay them within 60 days.

Section 23:1201(E) strictly limits penalty liability to the employer or its insurer, so an entity that is not an insurer is not liable for the penalties.

Bowens v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1992-11-30(E)

In interpreting La.R.S. 23:1201(E) and La. R.S. 23:1201.2, we bear in mind that it is "the universally recognized rule of law that statutes imposing penalties must be strictly construed and every doubt must be resolved against the imposition of the penalty." Tichenor v. Tichenor, 190 La. 77, 181 So. 863, 864 (1938); Gros v. LeBlanc, 304 So.2d 49 (La.App. 1st Cir.1974). We are unable to say, under a strict construction of La.R.S. 23:1201(E) and La.R.S. 23:1201.2, that LIGA is an insurer for purposes of penalties and attorney fees. Accordingly, we hold that LIGA is not liable for penalties and attorney fees, either as a covered claim or as a result of its own actions.

Subsection (F) provides penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to timely pay benefits without a reasonable controversion or an excuse beyond its control, and permits penalties for separate violations.

Frank v. Kent Guidry Farms · filed 2002-05-08(F)

Louisiana courts have consistently held that failure to authorize a medical procedure for an employee eligible to receive workers' compensation is deemed to be a failure to furnish compensation benefits, thereby triggering the penalty provisions of the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act. ... Penalties and attorney fees shall be awarded if the employer or the insurer fails to timely pay benefits due claimant, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. ... Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(F)(1) provides that the penalty and attorney fees shall be assessed against either the employer or the insurer, depending upon fault. ... Because there were multiple violations in this case, Mr. Frank is entitled to receive multiple penalties as requested.

Subsection (F) permits multiple penalties for separate violations involving unpaid compensation or medical benefits and provides for the greater of a 12-percent penalty or $50 per day, subject to the statutory cap, plus reasonable attorney fees.

Montgomery v. Orleans Parish School Board · filed 2004-06-02(F)

The actual amount of the medical bills is not relevant to the penalties and attorney fees assessed. The relevant issue is the delay in the payment of the medical bills.

Section 23:1201(F) permits one penalty for each distinct violation of the statute.

Boudreaux v. Bellsouth Telecommunications · filed 2003-03-11(F)

Based on our conclusion that claimant is entitled to multiple penalties, we amend the judgment to award one penalty for each of defendants’ three violations of La. R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) provides multiple penalties for multiple violations involving compensation and medical-benefit claims.

Roque v. Shell Beach Trucking · filed 2003-05-07(F)

Defendants' first assignment of error asserts the WCJ erred in imposing multiple penalties. We disagree. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently settled this issue finding "La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits claims."

Subsection (F) permits separate penalties for multiple violations, but each penalty corresponds to a distinct claim for specific benefits rather than to every individual bill arising from one violation.

White v. Shop Rite · filed 2002-04-03(F)

After considering our conflicting rulings, we choose to adhere to our ruling in Haynes, allowing for multiple penalties for multiple violations regarding indemnity and medical benefits claims. ... In keeping with Haynes and Gay, we have examined the exhibits submitted and have attempted to group the untimely and/or unpaid bills into “claims,” i.e., specific demands for particular benefits.

Subsection F permits separate penalties for distinct unpaid compensation and medical-benefit violations, including each of the five violations asserted in this case.

Moore v. City of New Orleans · filed 2003-01-29(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201 F is penal in nature and, therefore, must be strictly construed. ... A reasonable interpretation of the 1995 amendment is that the legislature intended to clarify that separate penalties could be awarded for both unpaid compensation and medical benefit claims. The statute as amended in 1995 makes no provision that a separate penalty is available for every single violation of the act. ... In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14, the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the penalty provision of La. R.S. 23:1201 F to allow for multiple penalties for multiple violations regarding indemnity and medical benefits claims. In the case at bar, we find the trial court erred in its determination of that which plaintiff is entitled to recover as penalties. We hold that plaintiff is entitled to recover a penalty, as provided for in La. R.S. 23:1201 F, for each of the five violations that plaintiff has asserted.

Section 23:1201(F) provides multiple penalties for multiple violations involving compensation and medical-benefit claims.

Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District · filed 2003-01-14(F)

We find the appellate court properly interpreted the provisions of this statute in favor of finding that LA.REV.STAT. ANN. § 23:1201(F) provides multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits claims.

Section 23:1201 permits multiple penalties, but a further penalty is not warranted when the later denial of treatment is reasonably controverted.

Phillips v. Diocese of Lafayette · filed 2004-03-24

Although the supreme court concluded in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La. 1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14, that multiple penalties are recoverable under La.R.S. 23:1201, we find that a second penalty is not appropriate in this case.

Section 23:1201(F) allows separate penalties for multiple failures to pay compensation or medical benefits, measured by the greater of 12% of unpaid benefits or $50 per day, subject to the statutory maximum in effect when the benefits were denied.

Rivera v. M & R Cable Contractors, Inc. · filed 2004-12-15(F)

In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, 02-478 (La. 1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14, rehearing granted in part on other grounds, 02-442, 01-478 (La. 4/21/03), 851 So.2d 917, the supreme court held that La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits claims. ... M&R has not made any indemnity payments or medical benefits, and is, therefore, subject to more than one penalty. ... Furthermore, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) mandates a penalty of the greater of twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits or fifty dollars a day for each day the benefits remain unpaid. ... We recognize that the law now provides for a ceiling on the maximum amount of penalties at $8,000. However, this maximum penalty provision was not added until 2003 by Acts 2003, No. 1204, § 1. ... Therefore, Juan is not subject to the maximum penalty limitation of $8,000.

Subsection (F) permits multiple penalties for multiple violations but does not authorize a separate penalty for each missed week of indemnity benefits, and its penalty provisions are strictly construed.

Taylor v. Hollywood Casino · filed 2006-06-28(F)

Statutory provisions permitting the assessment of penalties and attorney fees for nonpayment of workers' compensation benefits are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. ... The provisions of La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provide for multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits. ... As this court recognized in Player v. International Paper Company, 39,254 (La. App.2d Cir.1/28/05), 892 So.2d 781, La. R.S. 23:1201(F) allows multiple penalties but does not contemplate that a claimant can be awarded a separate penalty for each missed week of indemnity benefits as occurred in the instant case. We amend the award of penalties for missed indemnity benefits to $2,000, the maximum allowed under these facts.

Subsection (F) authorizes multiple penalties when an employer commits multiple violations involving compensation and medical benefits claims.

Wyble v. Acadiana Preparatory School · filed 2007-05-02(F)

The provisions of La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provide for multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits claims. ... But here the WCJ concluded that the School’s failure to pay medical benefits was an ongoing violation, which resulted in only one penalty award under the circumstances of the case. Finding no manifest error in this factual determination by the WCJ, we affirm the penalty award and decline to increase it on appeal.

Subsection (F) permits multiple penalties but caps the total penalties at $8,000, and the 2003 amendment applies prospectively.

Lambert v. Brookshire Grocery Co. · filed 2006-12-20(F)

In Maricle v. Sunbelt Builders, Inc., 05-398, p. 11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), 916 So.2d 1226, 1234, writ denied, 05-2506 (La.3/31/06), 925 So.2d 1261, this court explained that "Louisiana Revised Statute[s] 23:1201(F) was amended by the legislature by 2003 La. Acts No. 1204, § 1, to expressly provide for multiple penalties and to place a cap on the amount of penalties which may be awarded at $8,000.000 [sic]. The effective date of the legislative amendment was August 15, 2003." ... Given this evidence, we find the awarding of multiple penalties in excess of $8,000.00 clearly wrong. Accordingly, we reduce the total penalty award from $16,000.00 to $8,000.00.

Section 23:1201(F) permits multiple penalties for multiple violations, but a single ongoing failure to pay several weeks of indemnity benefits warrants only one penalty.

Ducote v. Louisiana Industries, Inc. · filed 2008-04-02(F)

What we are called upon to decide is the number of penalties which may be imposed for the nonpayment of indemnity benefits over a six-week period. ... We disagree with Mr. Ducote's interpretation of La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... Based upon the foregoing, we find that the WCJ was legally correct in awarding Mr. Ducote a single penalty for the failure of Louisiana Industries to pay six weeks of indemnity benefits.

Section 23:1201(F) and (I) may each support penalties for the same conduct, but the same violation cannot receive duplicative penalties under both provisions.

Morris v. Cactus Drilling Company · filed 2008-04-30(F), (I)

Although penalties could be imposed under either section of the statute, to allow penalties under both sections of the statute would be to twice penalize a defendant for the same behavior. We do not believe this was the intent of the statute.

Subsection (F) permits separate penalties for separate violations, so multiple penalties may be imposed when an employer commits multiple distinct violations.

Burnett v. Village of Estherwood · filed 2009-12-09(F)

In this case, there were three separate mileage submissions which were either underpaid or paid late for different reasons. Multiple penalties for multiple violations are allowed by statute. See La.R.S. 23:1201(F). We agree with the WCJ in her finding that there were three separate acts in this case such that three separate penalties are warranted.

Section 23:1201 permits multiple penalties for multiple violations, with penalties and attorney fees triggered by an employer’s or insurer’s failure to comply with the statute’s procedures.

Cox v. Port Aggregates, Inc. · filed 2011-02-02

In Gay [v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 32,653 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/22/99); 754 So.2d 1101,] this court decided that the triggering event for penalties and attorney fees is not the injury giving rise to the compensation claim, but instead is the employer’s or insurer’s failure to comply with the procedures set forth in La. R.S. 23:1201. Interpretation of “claim” as a specific demand for particular benefits (such as an operation) rather than as a general demand for benefits under the compensation laws is consistent with the Gay rationale. As in Gay, “to conclude otherwise would dilute the deterrent effect of these statutory provisions, which are not intended to make the worker ‘whole’ but rather to discourage specific conduct on the part of the employer.” ... In this case, it is undisputed that Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff for his medical and pharmacy bills, failed to approve physical therapy recommended by Dr. Gunderson, failed to approve x-rays and therapy recommended by Dr. Altimura, and failed to pay compensation benefits. Each of these incidents constitutes a “claim” as defined in the Haynes cases. Accordingly the trial court did not err in granting penalties in the amount of $6000.00.

Section 23:1201(E) requires timely payment of medical benefits, and § 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for each violation, subject to an $8,000 aggregate maximum.

Johnson v. Conagra Poultry Company · filed 2012-03-21(E), (F)

In this case, Conagra admitted to thirteen violations of La.R.S. 23:1201(E). Each violation entitles Mr. Johnson to penalties and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). Based on Conagra‘s admission of guilt, we find that Mr. Johnson is entitled to a penalty based on each of the thirteen violations of La.R.S. 23:1201(E). However, since La.R.S. 23:1201(F) limits the maximum amount of penalties awarded pursuant to this section to $8,000.00, the WCJ‘s judgment is amended to increase the penalty awarded to Mr. Johnson from $2,000.00 to $8,000.00.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay compensation or medical benefits without reasonably controverting the claim, but duplicative penalties for related failures should not be awarded separately.

Mallery v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. · filed 2012-03-14(F)

Nevertheless, we conclude that the WCJ erred in awarding Mallery a penalty for failing to authorize the cervical surgery recommended by Dr. Cobb and a separate penalty for failing to authorize post-surgical care and medical treatment for his neck, as those penalties are duplicative.

Section 23:1201(F) permits multiple penalties for multiple violations involving indemnity and medical benefits claims.

Haynes v. Fence · filed 2002-01-09(F)

After considering our conflicting rulings, we choose to adhere to our original ruling *235in Haynes, allowing for multiple penalties for multiple violations regarding indemnity and medical benefits claims. Thus, we affirm the decision of the original 13three-judge panel in this matter to amend the trial judgment to award Kenneth Haynes an additional $8,000.00 in penalties pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) permits multiple penalties for multiple violations, but repeated late payments on one pharmacy account may constitute a single ongoing violation subject to one penalty.

Johnson v. Conagra Poultry Company · filed 2009-12-09(F)

Therefore, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for “multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits claims.” ... We find no error in the WCJ’s decision that the employer’s failure to timely pay bills Causey’s Pharmacy submitted was a single, ongoing violation. Sedgwick continued to make late, single, lump-sum payments toward the payment of the bill at Causey’s. Thus, we affirm the single penalty of $2,000.00.

Subsection (F) permits multiple penalties when an employer commits multiple separate violations.

James Burnett, Sr. v. Village of Esterwood · filed 2009-12-09(F)

In this case, there were three separate mileage submissions which were either underpaid or paid late for different reasons. Multiple penalties for multiple violations are allowed by statute. See La.R.S. 23:1201(F). We agree with the WCJ in her finding that there were three separate acts in this case such that three separate penalties are warranted.

Section 23:1201 permits multiple penalties for separate arbitrary and capricious violations by an employer or insurer.

Duvall v. St. Francis Cabrini Hospital · filed 2001-12-28

We agree with the holding in Haynes, and find that, in order to more effectively deter multiple infractions by employers and insurers, multiple penalties are appropriate.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when a workers' compensation claim is not reasonably controverted, but a nonfrivolous legal dispute can establish that the claim was reasonably controverted.

Critser v. Dillard's Department Stores, Inc. · filed 2002-12-20(F)

The purpose of the imposition of penalties and attorney fees in a workers’ compensation proceeding is to nudge the employer into making timely payments when there is no reasonable basis for refusing or delaying its obligation. ... To determine whether a claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties under La. R.S. 23:1201, one of the factors used by the court is to determine whether the employer or his insurer engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute. ... Because Dillard’s was not attempting to relitigate an issue previously addressed by the supreme court, | fiwe find that Dillard’s actions were not frivolous litigation.

Subsection (F) authorizes attorney’s fees for failure to pay claims due under Subsections (A)–(E), but not for failure to provide vocational rehabilitation.

Maynard v. Grey Wolf Drilling · filed 2004-10-20(F)

Turning to the issue of attorney’s fees, reference to La.R.S. 23:1201(F) indicates the availability of attorney’s fees for failure to pay claims due under La.R.S. 23:1201(A)-(E). ... Thus, although we have concluded that the award of attorney’s fees for violations of La.R.S. 23:1201 was not an abuse of discretion, the failure to provide appropriate rehabilitation is not one of those which we have considered to be a suitable basis for the award.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and reasonable attorney fees for unpaid compensation unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control, with penalties reserved for refusals lacking good faith and just cause.

Moore v. Conagra Poultry Co. · filed 2005-01-26(F)

We find no manifest error in the award of penalties and attorney fees in light of this record as a whole.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees for failure to provide compensation benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment was beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control, while subsection (I)’s arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause standard applies when benefits are terminated.

Thomas v. Casino Magic · filed 2005-05-11(F), (I)

Regarding a claim under La. R.S. 23:1201(F), an employee has the burden of proving his entitlement to statutory penalties for the employer's failure to timely pay workers' compensation benefits. To reasonably controvert a workers' compensation claim so as to avoid imposition of penalties and attorney fees, the employer and its insurer must provide sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the evidence provided by the claimant. ... Here, the WCJ applied the incorrect statute when awarding penalties and attorney fees on the finding that Casino Magic acted arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to award compensation benefits to Thomas. However, pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(I) the standard of "arbitrary, capricious, and without probably cause" pertains to cases where the employer terminated claimant's benefits (discontinuance of benefits) and not to cases such as the instant case where there was a failure to provide compensation benefits. Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), a failure to provide compensation benefits shall result in assessment of penalties and reasonable attorney fees unless the claim is "reasonably controverted" or nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or its insurer had no control.

Subsection (J) is a substantive change that applies prospectively only, while subsection (F) requires workers’ compensation attorney-fee awards to be reasonable.

Metoyer v. Roy O. Martin, Inc. · filed 2005-03-23(J) and (F)

La.R.S. 23:1201(J) changes existing rights. Therefore, we find that it is substantive. ... Therefore, we find that La.R.S. 23:1201(J) has no effect on the awards of attorney’s fees made in this case. ... However, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) requires that awards of attorney’s fees be reasonable. ... We find the award of attorney’s fees, as outlined in the reasons for judgment to be justified and reasonable.

Section 23:1201(J) limits an employer or insurer to one reasonable attorney-fee award for conduct preceding a merits hearing, but that limitation does not apply retroactively to conduct predating the provision’s effective date.

Daenen v. the Cajun Landing Restaurant · filed 2005-04-06(J)

In this case, the denial of benefits occurred prior to the effective date of this provision. ... We find La.R.S. 23:1201(J) does not prohibit multiple awards of attorney’s fees in this case.

Section 23:1201(J) permits only one reasonable attorney-fee award for a merits hearing and makes that award res judicata as to earlier conduct, but it does not apply retroactively to deny multiple fees for conduct predating its effective date.

Daenen v. Cajun Landing Restaurant · filed 2005-04-06(J)

We find La.R.S. 23:1201(J) does not prohibit multiple awards of attorney’s fees in this case.

Section 23:1201(F) and (J) bar penalties and attorney fees for conduct that preceded an earlier merits hearing when the prior award is res judicata as to those claims.

Metoyer v. Roy O. Martin, Inc. · filed 2004-12-01(F) and (J)

The January, June and July 1999 payments were claims which arose from conduct that preceded the August 9, 1999 hearing. Thus, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) and (J) preclude Ms. Metoyer from collecting penalties or attorney fees for those incorrect payments.

Section 23:1201(F) permits a penalty for an unpaid medical bill when the employer lacked a reasonable foundation for refusing payment, while § 23:1201(G) does not apply to an appealed judgment.

Lazaro v. New Orleans Brass · filed 2005-05-04(F), (G)

Since the judgment in the instant case has been appealed, this provision is inapplicable and Mr. Lazaro is not entitled to the penalties and attorney fees provided for by the statute.

Section 23:1201(G) applies when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days.

Rodrigue v. Lafourche Parish School Board · filed 2005-05-06(G)

Initially, we note that La. R.S. 23:1201(G) clearly sets forth that an employer is liable for penalties and attorney fees if it does not pay an award payable under a final, nonappealable judgment within 30 days.

Section 23:1201(F) provides for an attorney-fee award when an employer fails to pay medical bills within the prescribed time, and the award is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Adams v. Dependable Source Corp. · filed 2007-05-04(F)

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201 F provides for an attorney fee award for failing to pay medical bills within the time prescribed pursuant to 23:1201. The amount of the award is to be reviewed using the "abuse of discretion" standard.

Subsection (G) does not permit the employer’s degree of bad faith to be considered when determining the amount of attorney fees.

Sisk v. a P Supply Co. · filed 2009-01-21(G)

The degree of bad faith exhibited by the employer is not an appropriate factor in determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded under La. R.S. 23:1201(G).

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes reasonable attorney fees; their amount depends on counsel’s skill and time, the size of the claim, and the recovery, without regard to the employer’s degree of bad faith.

Smith v. Quarles Drilling Co. · filed 2001-10-03(F)

The factors to be taken into account when fixing the amount of attorney fees to be awarded in a workers' compensation case are the degree of skill and ability exercised by the attorney, the amount of the claim, the amount recovered for the claimant, and the amount of time the attorney devoted to the case. Id. A court cannot take into consideration the degree of bad faith exhibited by the employer. Id. In determining whether the amount awarded by the court is abusively low, therefore, we must focus not on whether the employer lacked bad faith, as found by the workers' compensation judge, but on the other factors as set forth above.

Section 23:1201(F) allows reasonable attorney fees, but bad faith cannot be used to increase the amount awarded.

Desselle v. Oaks Care Center · filed 2002-04-24(F)

However, once the bad faith factor is extricated from the totality of jurispru-dentially-approved criteria and those factors listed in Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we conclude that ban award of $12,500 is appropriate to provide full compensation for the laudable work performed by the claimant’s attorney.

Section 23:1201(F) leaves the amount of a reasonable statutory attorney fee to the workers' compensation judge's discretion, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Ardoin v. Kipling Korner Grocery · filed 2003-03-05(F)

Rather, our role is to determine whether the WCJ abused her discretion in setting a reasonable fee.

Section 23:1201(G) requires reasonable attorney fees when a final, nonappealable award is not timely paid unless a statutory exception applies, and permits the court to consider the employer’s bad faith in setting the fee amount.

Langley v. Petro Star Corp. of La. · filed 2000-12-29(G)

We now hold that the view expressed in Britton is the correct view and the court can take into consideration the degree of bad faith exhibited by the employer in determining the appropriate amount of attorneys' fees to be imposed. ... The question is not, then, whether an attorney fee should be imposed. That is automatic in the absence of one of the two factors listed above. The question is simply how much the attorney fee will be and what factors are to be considered in reaching that amount.

Section 23:1201(G) allows reasonable attorney fees for an unpaid final, nonappealable judgment, but the fee amount may not include a punitive factor based on the employer's degree of bad faith.

Langley v. Petro Star Corp. of La. · filed 2001-06-29(G)

We granted a writ of certiorari in this workers' compensation action to resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal regarding the proper factors to be considered in fixing an award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(G). For the reasons that follow, we hold that a court should not take into consideration the degree of bad faith exhibited by the employer in determining the appropriate amount of attorney fees to be awarded under the statute.

Section 23:1201 requires penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment of compensation or medical benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Champagne v. STATE, LOUISIANA STATE UNIV. · filed 2002-03-28(F)(2)

The unambiguous language of the statute clearly establishes that penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay benefits shall be assessed unless the claim is reasonably controverted or such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. La. R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201(B) sets the initial-payment deadline, while § 23:1201(F) imposes penalties for unpaid benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim, and § 23:1201(F)(2) provides the corresponding reasonable-controversion exception for medical benefits.

Warren v. Maddox Hauling · filed 2002-12-04(B), (F), (F)(2)

Maddox Hauling began paying indemnity benefits on June 17, 2001; however, the first payment was due on the fourteenth day after the injury, June 10, 2001. ... Thus, the WCJ used La.R.S. 23:1201(F) to calculate his award for these untimely or not paid benefits. ... After reviewing the record in its entirety, we cannot say that the WCJ committed manifest error in awarding these penalties, as La.R.S. 23:1201 provides that the employer or insurer is liable for statutory penalties for withholding benefits without evidence to "reasonably controvert" the employee's right to compensation and medical benefits.

Section 23:1201(F) provides penalties and reasonable attorney fees for unpaid compensation or medical benefits, but penalties are not assessed when the employer reasonably controverts the claim.

Taylor v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections · filed 2002-03-28(F)

Penalties are not to be assessed when the employee’s right to such benefits has been reasonably controverted by the employer or insurer. ... We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the evidence in this case and conclude that the State’s failure to pay medical bills was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in light of the medical evidence that was present. Thus, Taylor was not entitled to penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F) and 23:1201.2.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when indemnity or medical benefits are paid late, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions outside the employer's or insurer's control.

Smith v. Hansen's Seafood Dock · filed 2002-12-11(F), (F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201 F provides for the imposition of penalties and attorneys fees when indemnity or medical benefits due to the claimant are not paid timely. However, under R.S. 23:1201 F(2), this does not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. ... Thus, the Defendants failed to show that the refusal for surgery - and the indemnity amounts were reasonably controverted. Thus, we find no manifest error in the awards for penalties and attorney’s fee awards.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees for unpaid compensation or medical benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Cormier v. Sam Broussard Trucking Co. · filed 2002-05-08(F)(2)

F. Failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section shall result in the assessment of a penalty in an amount equal to twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits or fifty dollars per calendar day, whichever is greater, for each day in which any and all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid, together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim; however, the fifty dollars per calendar day penalty shall not exceed a maximum of two thousand dollars in the aggregate for any claim.

Section 23:1201's initial-payment penalty provision concerns untimely commencement and reasonable controversy, while the discontinuance provision—then § 23:1201.2 and replaced by subsections (I) and (J)—applies when a self-insured employer stops benefits that it timely began paying.

Longoria v. Brookshire Grocery Co. · filed 2003-12-19(I) and (J)

Section 1201 involves the employer's failure to timely commence payment of benefits, while Section 1201.2 involves the employer's discontinuance of benefits after timely commencement. Section 1201 applies penalties to employers and insurers alike, while Section 1201.2's penalty provision incorporates the penalties of La. R.S. 22:658 applicable only to insurers, and not self-insured employers. ... From our review of Brown and Williams v. Rush Masonry, which sorted out how these two penalty provisions of the Act apply, we find that the present situation, analogous to the one addressed in Williams v. Rush Masonry, requires the application of Section 1201.2 to address a self-insured employer's discontinuance of payments of medical benefits. To the contrary, the WCJ's ruling measured Brookshire's conduct under the reasonable controversy standard of Section 1201, and the $500 penalty awarded has no application to Brookshire under Section 1201.2.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and attorney's fees for untimely indemnity or medical benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions outside the employer's or insurer's control.

Barbarin v. TLC Home Health · filed 2003-04-29(F), (F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201 F provides for the imposition of penalties and attorneys fees when indemnity or medical benefits due to the claimant are not paid timely. However, under R.S. 23:1201 F(2), this does not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. In order to reasonably controvert a claim, the Defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base the denial of benefits. Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 890. Thus, the court must determine whether the Defendant engaged in a non-frivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time which they refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed. Id.

Section 23:1201 requires a $50-per-day penalty for late medical-benefit payments, capped at $2,000 in the aggregate for any claim.

Ware v. Allen Parish School Bd. · filed 2003-09-24

That bill was paid two days late. La.R.S. 23:1201 provides that penalties for late payments of medical benefits shall be $50 per calendar day, not to exceed a maximum of $2,000 in the aggregate of any claim. In that regard, we reduce the penalty on the July 13th bill to $400 and on the January 12th bill to $100.

Subsection (F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer untimely fails to pay benefits or medical benefits, unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Jackson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2004-02-10(F)

Penalties and attorney fees are recoverable under LSA-R.S. 23:1201(F) if the employer or insurer fails to commence payments of benefits timely or to pay continued installments or medical benefits timely, unless the claim is reasonably controverted. The statutes providing for imposition of penalties and attorney fees are to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers, and are essentially penal in nature. Although the Workers' Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in regard to benefits, penal statutes are to be strictly construed.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer fails to pay owed workers’ compensation or medical benefits, unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim.

Lewis v. CHATEAU D'ARBONNE NURSE CARE CTR. · filed 2004-04-07(F)

The employer's failure to provide payment of compensation or medical benefits owed shall result in the assessment of a penalty and reasonable attorney fees, unless the employer has reasonably controverted the claim. ... Given these facts, the evidence of prior back pain was insufficient to reasonably controvert Lewis' claim for her ruptured disc. Under either statutory standard, reasonably controverted in La. R.S. 23:1201(F), or arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause in La. R.S. 23:1201.2,[1] the penalties and attorney fees were properly awarded.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and reasonable attorney fees for unpaid compensation or medical benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment arose from conditions beyond the employer or insurer's control.

Fontenot v. Pyramid Alloys, Inc. · filed 2004-05-12(F)

Subparagraph (2) of La.R.S. 23:1201(F) states: “This Subsection shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” ... Whether the WCJ finds that an employer reasonably controverts a claim for benefits is a question of fact. ... We find no manifest error in the WCJ’s finding that Pyramid did not reasonably controvert Mr. Fontenot’s claim. Therefore, we affirm the WCJ’s award of penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and attorney's fees when indemnity or medical benefits are not timely paid, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Sarrio v. Stalling Const. Co. · filed 2004-05-26(F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201 F provides for the imposition of penalties and attorneys fees when indemnity or medical benefits due to the claimant are not paid timely. However, this does not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted, or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. La.R.S. 23:1201 F(2). In order to reasonably controvert a claim, the Defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base the denial of benefits.

Section 23:1201(E) requires medical benefits, including mileage expenses incurred for medical treatment, to be paid within 60 days after written notice; once a documented request is submitted, the employer or insurer must show that it paid timely.

Jeanise v. Tommy Cannon D/B/A Rental World, Inc. · filed 2005-02-23(E)

It is well settled that travel expenses (mileage) incurred to seek medical treatment form part of a claimant’s medical expense claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(E); La.R.S. 23:1203(D); Milligan v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc., 355 So.2d 569 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1978). Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(E) provides: "Medical benefits payable under this Chapter shall be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives written notice thereof." Once Claimant submitted a documented request for payment of mileage, as was the case here, the burden shifted to the Defendant to show that the request was timely paid. The record reflects that more than sixty days elapsed after the Claimant had made these requests for payment.

When providers do not use the specified electronic billing rules, § 23:1201(E)(1) requires medical benefits to be paid within 60 days after the employer or insurer receives written notice.

Washington v. Louisiana-I Gaming · filed 2014-12-23(E)(1)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(E)(1), “medical benefits payable under this Chapter shall be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives written notice thereof, if the provider of medical services is not utilizing the electronic billing rules and regulations provided. for in R.S. 23:1203.2.” No evidence in the record exists that claimant’s medical providers utilize such electronic billing. Therefore, at the time of trial, 60 days had not expired since Boomtown received notice of claimant’s medical claims. Therefore, we cannot find that Boomtown did not reasonably controvert claimant’s medicals.

Subsection (E)'s sixty-day period governs approval of requested medical treatment, and the court affirmed that the approval here was timely.

Romero v. Garan's, Inc. · filed 2014-08-06(E), (G)

Accordingly, since Garan’s approval of the radiofrequency facet-nerve ablation was timely, the judgment of the WCJ denying penalties and attorney fees based on Garan’s failure to authorize the requested procedure is affirmed.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney’s fees when an employer reasonably controverts the compensation claim, including when it has valid factual information supporting denial of benefits.

Paul Thomas, Jr. v. Browning-Ferris, Inc. · filed 2004-03-31(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(F) provides that penalties and attorney’s fees will be assessed against an employer who fails to timely provide compensation benefits or medical benefits to the injured employee. However, penalties and attorney’s fees will not be assessed if the employer reasonably controverted the injured employer’s claim or if the “nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... Based on the foregoing, we find that BFI did have valid factual information for denying Thomas’ claim. Accordingly, we find that the workers’ compensation judge erred in finding that it failed to reasonably controvert his claim. His judgment assessing BFI with penalties and attorney’s fees is reversed.