La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1201

Section 23:1201 subjects an insurer to penalties and attorney's fees for arbitrarily or capriciously failing to pay compensation claims, and the statute is strictly construed because it is penal.

Broussard v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. · filed 1990-05-23

La.R.S. 23:1201 and 23:1201.2 subjects an insurer, who fails to pay compensation claims, to payment of penalties and attorney's fees when the failure to pay is arbitrary or capricious. However, Louisiana courts have consistently held that these statutes are penal in nature and, as such, must be strictly construed so that employers are not penalized for taking close factual questions to court for resolution, and for relying on valid defenses.

Section 23:1201(E), together with § 23:1201.2, makes penalties and attorney's fees the employee's exclusive remedy when a workers' compensation insurer arbitrarily and capriciously terminates benefits and the alleged injury is only emotional and financial loss.

Boudoin v. Bradley · filed 1989-10-04(E)

However, as in this case, where the employee merely alleges emotional and financial loss caused by the wrongful termination of benefits, his sole remedy is found in the penalties and attorney's fees provisions of La. R.S. 23:1201(E) and 23:1201.2. ... If these allegations are true, then First Horizon's termination of benefits was clearly arbitrary and capricious and without probable cause. When an insurer engages in such conduct, it becomes subject to the imposition of penalties and attorney's fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(E) and La. R.S. 23:1201.2. See Physicians and Surgeons Hospital, Inc., supra, where we expressly held that there is no separate tort action for mental anguish when a compensation carrier refuses to pay a claim. Because both the employer and the insurer enjoy the same immunity from tort liability, this administrative penalty is the plaintiff's exclusive remedy.

Subsection (F) permits both penalties and attorney fees when benefits are not timely paid, but it does not apply when benefits were timely commenced and later discontinued.

Authement v. Wal-Mart · filed 2003-09-26(F)

The distinction drawn in the Williams case is significant because both penalties and attorney fees are recoverable under La. R.S. 23:1201(F), whereas only attorney fees are recoverable under La. R.S. 23:1201.2. Id.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes statutory penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to timely pay workers' compensation benefits without reasonably controverting the claim.

Hooker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2004-03-03(F)

This is a case where the employee alleges that the employer failed to pay continued installments of indemnity benefits and not a case where wrongful termination of benefits is alleged. Accordingly, La. R.S. 23:1201(F), not La. R.S. 23:1201.2, is the appropriate penalty statute. Gilcrease v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 36,523 (La.App.2d Cir.12/11/02), 843 So.2d 415. 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. Bolton v. Mike Fleming Construction, 36,521 (La.App.2d Cir.12/11/02), 833 So.2d 1177. 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.

Section 23:1201 imposes penalties and attorney's fees when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a claim or arbitrarily, capriciously, and without probable cause fails to pay or discontinues benefits due.

LANE MEMORIAL HOSP v. Gay · filed 2004-02-23

These cases awarded attorney's fees pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201. That statutory provision imposes penalties and attorney's fees when an employer does not reasonably controvert a claim or arbitrarily, capriciously and without probable cause fails to pay a claim or discontinues payment of claims due. In this instant case, a motion to compel was the only matter before the workers' compensation judge. Therefore, LSA-R.S. 23:1201 does not apply herein.

Section 23:1201(I) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer or insurer discontinues benefits arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause, evaluated from the information known when benefits were terminated.

Freeman v. Triad Builders · filed 2005-05-11(I)

In the case sub judice, the WCJ based the award of attorney fees on his opinion that Triad and CNA advanced a "highly technical" interpretation of 23:1208 and were overzealous in their application of the same to the facts of this case. We disagree that Triad's and CNA's termination of benefits rises to the level of arbitrary and capricious action so as to warrant an award of attorney fees under 12:1201(I). ... As previously stated, the inquiry is focused on what knowledge the employer/insurer had at the time the benefits were terminated. Reed, supra; Lynn, supra. ... Although the WCJ ultimately ruled that Mr. Freeman's misrepresentations were not made willfully or with intent to deceive, at the time benefits were terminated, we find that the knowledge of Triad and CNA that Mr. Freeman was engaged in physical activity that he represented he was unable to perform provided a reasonable basis for termination of benefits. ... For this reason, the award of attorney fees is reversed.

Subsection (I) permits penalties and attorney fees for discontinuing benefits only when the discontinuance is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, a more egregious standard than subsection (F)'s reasonably-controverted standard.

Logging v. Sepulvado · filed 2006-05-31(I)

Because this case involves a discontinuance of benefits, the standard by which the employer or insurer’s conduct is judged is found in La.R.S. 23:1201(I). Under that statute, an employer or insurer who discontinues payment shall be subject to penalties and attorney fees “when such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.” ... Further, the arbitrary and capricious standard requires conduct that is more egregious than that required by La.R.S. 23:1201(F), which imposes penalties and attorney fees when the employer or insurer fails to timely pay a claim that is not “reasonably controverted.”

Subsection (I) applies according to the law in effect when benefits were denied and permits a penalty, up to $8,000, for an arbitrary, capricious, or unjustified discontinuance of medical benefits occurring after its effective date.

Mullins v. Concrete & Steel Erectors · filed 2006-09-27(I)

Subsection I was added by 2003 La. Acts No. 1204, § 1 and was effective on August 15, 2003. The law in effect at the time of the denial of benefits governs a workers’ compensation claimant’s request for penalties and attorney fees. ... Therefore, we find that Mr. Mullins would be entitled to a penalty if he established that the discontinuance was arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. ... Therefore, we find the WCJ was clearly wrong in failing to award a penalty for discontinuing payment of medical benefits to Dr. Rush. We find that, under the circumstances, Mr. Mullins is entitled to the maximum penalty for the violation that occurred after the effective date of La.R.S. 23:1201(I) in the amount of $8,000.00.

Section 23:1201(I) makes an employer or insurer that arbitrarily or capriciously discontinues compensation benefits liable for a penalty of up to $8,000 and a reasonable attorney fee, with the version in effect when benefits were withheld controlling the penalty amount.

Lanthier v. Family Dollar Store · filed 2006-11-02(I)

As La.R.S. 23:1201(I) was in effect at the time Family Dollar withheld Lanthier’s compensation benefits, it controls the amount of penalties that may be awarded. Lanthier has already been awarded $6000 in penalties. Thus, we may only award her an additional $2000 in penalties based on Family Dollar’s arbitrary and capricious termination of her SEBs.

Section 23:1201(I) permits a single penalty of up to $8,000 for an arbitrary, capricious, or baseless discontinuance of claims, and subsection (F) does not provide an additional penalty when benefits were initially paid and later terminated.

Doyal v. VERNON PARISH SCHOOL BD. · filed 2007-02-07(I), (F)

The wording of La.R.S. 23:1201(I), set forth herein, indicates otherwise. The paragraph speaks broadly of "claims" and subjects an employer to "a penalty not to exceed eight thousand dollars . . ." In light of this language, the workers' compensation judge did not err in awarding a single, $8,000.00 penalty. ... Mr. Doyal also suggests that an additional penalty should have been awarded under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), the paragraph providing for penalties in the event that payments are not made. Again, we find no merit in this argument. In this case, both indemnity and medical benefits were initially provided and later terminated. Thus, the workers' compensation judge appropriately limited penalties in this situation in accordance with La.R.S. 23:1201(I).

Section 23:1201(I) permits a single penalty of up to $8,000 for an arbitrary, capricious, or baseless discontinuance of claims, while § 23:1201(F) does not apply when indemnity and medical benefits were initially paid and later terminated.

Doyal v. Vernon Parish School Board · filed 2007-02-07(I), (F)

The wording of La.R.S. 23:1201(I), set forth herein, indicates otherwise. The paragraph speaks broadly of “claims” and subjects an employer to “a penalty not to exceed eight thousand dollars . . .” In light of this language, the workers’ compensation judge did not err in awarding a single, $8,000.00 penalty. Mr. Doyal also suggests that an additional penalty should have been awarded under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), the paragraph providing for penalties in the event that payments are not made. Again, we find no merit in this argument. In this case, both indemnity and medical benefits were initially provided and later terminated. Thus, the workers’ compensation judge appropriately limited penalties in this situation in accordance with La.R.S. 23:1201(I).

Section 23:1201(G) gives an employer thirty days to pay an award after the judgment becomes nonappealable, which occurs only after the delays for both suspensive and devolutive appeals have run.

Garrett v. K & B Machine Works, Inc. · filed 2016-02-26(G)

We find that the term “nonappealable”, as used in LSA-R.S. 23:1201 F, means that the judgment can no longer be appealed, i.e. all of the delays for the taking of an appeal, suspensive or devolutive, have run. ... Inasmuch as we are bound by this prior jurisprudence, we are unable to find that, the workers’ compensation judge erred in dismissing Garrett’s claim for penalties and attorney’s fees under LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G), as the judgment was paid eighty-six days after the judgment was rendered, and thus, it was paid within thirty days after the sixty-day delay for taking a devolutive appeal had run.

Section 23:1201(G) authorizes attorney fees when an award payable under a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days, including when third parties become individually liable for the workers’ compensation judgment.

Shermane Hector v. Mo Dad Environmental Serv., LLC · filed 2014-03-05(G)

As a specific exception to the rule that the Office of Workers’ Compensation has exclusive jurisdiction, we find the district court properly applied La.R.S. 23:1201(G) in awarding attorney fees in this case. The district court was specifically granted jurisdiction in this case to determine a third party’s liability to Shermane for payment of a workers’ compensation judgment. Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(G) provides for the payment of attorney fees when an award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days. Nowhere does the statute limit its applicability to that of an employer or insurer whom has become liable for payment of the judgment under the workers’ compensation law. When William and Bill became liable individually for payment of the outstanding workers’ compensation judgment, the district court could apply La.R.S. 23:1201(G) and award attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(G) permits penalties and attorney fees when an approved workers’ compensation settlement recited in open court and capable of transcription is not timely paid, because that settlement is treated as a final, non-appealable judgment.

Richard v. OUR LADY OF LOURDES REGIONAL MED. CENTER · filed 2002-10-30(G)

Likewise, we find the workers' compensation judge was correct in finding that the oral recitation of the workers' compensation settlement agreement by the parties in open court, which was capable of transcription, is a final, non-appealable judgment for the purposes of La.R.S. 23:1201(G).

Section 23:1201(G) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid for more than thirty days, including an OWC-approved settlement judgment, unless the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Villarreal v. Communications Systems Tech., Inc. · filed 2003-02-05(G)

Further, the claim brought by Villarreal in this case is essentially a request for enforcement of a settlement approved and rendered in the form of a judgment by the OWC. To not allow a claimant to enforce the settlement judgment would render the provisions of subsection G meaningless. Claimants would be unable to enforce their rights in the event they were not paid the amounts agreed to Lin the settlement. ... La.R.S. 23:1201(G) does provide an exception to the mandatory imposition of penalties and attorney fees if the “nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control.” As LWCC notes, this exception precludes the WCJ from awarding penalties and attorney fees where the employer meets its burden of proof of establishing that the nonpayment resulted from conditions not under his control.

When compensation benefits are modified for any reason, the employer or insurer must immediately notify the Office of Workers' Compensation of the change.

Comeaux v. City of Ville Platte · filed 1993-05-05(G)

La.R.S. 23:1201(G) provides that upon modification of compensation benefits, for any cause, the employer or insurer shall immediately send a notice to the OWC reflecting the change. In this case, notification was not filed in December 1988 when the benefits were changed from temporary total disability to SEB.

Section 23:1201(G) requires an award payable under a final, non-appealable judgment to be paid within thirty days, and late payment entitles the claimant to penalties and attorney fees.

SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERV. v. Cormier · filed 2003-03-26(G)

In accordance with La.R.S. 23:1201(G), an "award payable under the terms of a final, non-appealable judgment" must be paid within thirty days. Failure to pay the judgment amount within thirty days entitles the claimant to receive penalties and attorney fees.

Subsection (G) mandates penalties and attorney fees when an award payable under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid for more than thirty days after it becomes due, subject to the statutory exception.

Smith v. Quarles Drilling Company · filed 2003-12-17(G)

There is no jurisprudence to support the “clear, discernable” language used by the WCJ. The issue is whether interest was due, and if it was, whether penalties and attorney’s fees are owed. Thus, interest is “the award payable.” There is no “reasonably controverted” language in section 1201(G), as there is in section 1201(F). We must determine if interest is due to determine if it is an award payable, and that is strictly a legal question. The WCJ’s reasoning is flawed, in that she failed to determine if there was in fact an award payable which was not paid.

Subsection (G) requires penalties and attorney fees when an award payable under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid for more than thirty days, unless the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Smith v. Quarles Drilling Co. · filed 2003-12-17(G)

There is no jurisprudence to support the “clear, discernable” language used by the WCJ. ... We must determine if 'interest is due to determine if it is an award payable, and that is strictly a legal question. The WCJ’s reasoning is flawed, in that she failed to determine if there was in fact an award payable which was not paid. ... Thus, interest was due, Quarles failed to pay interest, and the filing by Smith was timely on May 9, 2002, because the entire judgment had not been paid within thirty days. Smith is entitled not only to the interest but also to further penalties and attorney’s fees under the mandatory provisions of section 1201(G).

Section 23:1201(G) applies to a workers’ compensation consent judgment entered during a pending compensation proceeding.

Deshotel v. Carolyn’s Wholesale Bait & Tackle · filed 2003-03-05(G)

For the reasons stated below, we find that La.R.S. 23:1201(G) does apply to the Consent Judgment entered into by the parties during the hearing to determine whether Ms. Deshotel was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

Section 23:1201(G) requires a 24-percent penalty plus reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is paid more than 30 days late, unless the delay resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Kessel v. Hotel Dieu Hosp. · filed 2002-10-16(G)

Hotel Dieu's argument that its untimely payment was due to conditions beyond its control is not persuasive. Although the judgment at issue herein was rendered on October 24, 2001, the parties had agreed upon the settlement amount almost a month prior, on September 11, 2001. ... Hotel Dieu knew of the statute's requirement that Ms. Kessel receive payment of the judgment in her favor within 30 days after it became due. ... Ms. Kessel did not receive the payment due to her under the October 24, 2001 judgment until January 14, 2002, more than 50 days after the 30 day period had expired. Further, the delay was caused by circumstances that were ultimately within Hotel Dieu's control. We thus find that the trial court committed manifest error in refusing to grant Ms. Kessel the 24 percent penalty, together with reasonable attorney's fees, due under R.S. 22:1201(G), and we reverse.

Section 23:1201(G) requires penalties and attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is unpaid for more than thirty days; the $3,000 cap applies to the $100-per-day penalty, not the alternative 24-percent penalty.

Atwood v. Ewing Timber, Inc. · filed 2003-01-29(G)

Under La. R.S. 23:1201(G), 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. ... While the $100 per day penalty provided for therein is limited to $3,000, the 24 percent penalty is not.

Subsection G imposes penalties and attorney fees when a final, nonappealable compensation award remains unpaid for more than thirty days, but only when the employer fails to comply with a clear order to pay.

Daniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2002-12-11G

Because R.S. 23:1201 G is penal in nature, it can apply only when the employer or insurer fails, within 30 days, to comply with a clear order to pay compensation benefits. On this record, we must find that the oral order of December 19 is not sufficiently clear to warrant imposing penalties and attorney fees. The judgments will therefore be reversed.

Section 23:1201(G) imposes a 24% penalty and permits attorney’s fees when the terms of a final, non-appealable judgment are not paid within thirty days.

Menard v. Sagrera · filed 2003-02-05(G)

Accordingly, we find the workers’ compensation judge erred in finding that the oral recitation of the settlement agreement capable of transcription was not a final, non-appealable judgment and in failing to award penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(6). The record reflects that the defendant failed to pay the terms of the settlement agreement within thirty days as required by law. Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G), the defendants are ordered to pay 24% of the amount payable under the settlement agreement as penalties.

Section 23:1201(B) makes the first compensation installment due 14 days after the employer knows of the disabling injury, while § 23:1201(E) does not impose the penalty when the employee's right to benefits has been reasonably controverted.

Williams v. Regional Transit Authority · filed 1989-06-19(B) (E)

La.R.S. 23:1201(B) provides that the first installment of compensation benefits shall become due the fourteenth day after the employer has knowledge of the injury giving rise to disability. La.R.S. 23:1201(E) 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...." ... The defendant therefore had reasonable grounds to controvert plaintiff's claim and does not owe statutory penalties under § 23:1201. ... Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in assessing statutory penalties and attorney's fees against the defendant.

Section 23:1201(E) allows penalties for noncompliance with a workers’ compensation judgment to be assessed by the district court as an ancillary part of enforcing that judgment.

Ross v. Highlands Ins. Co. · filed 1991-12-02(E)

In addition, because of their arbitrary refusal to pay, the defendants were cast in judgment for statutory penalties and attorneys' fees. La.R.S. 23:1201(E), (F); 23:1201.2 (West 1991). ... Penalties and attorneys' fees are matters ancillary to a defendant's non-compliance and the district court has jurisdiction to adjudicate matters incidental to the enforcement of its judgment. ... As such, we hold the district court has the jurisdiction to assess attorneys' fees and penalties.

Subsection (G) imposes a penalty and reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid for more than thirty days, subject to its exception and limits.

Lewis v. Cornerstone Village, Inc. · filed 2003-05-21(G)

Having met this burden, we find Lewis is entitled to penalties and attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:1201(G), which states: ... The total one hundred dollar per calendar day penalty provided for in this Subsection shall not exceed three thousand dollars in the aggregate. Lewis argues that two penalties are warranted in this case, one for the change in benefits from temporary total disability benefits to supplemental earnings benefits, and another for termination of all benefits. However, we find that only one penalty is warranted. The judgment in this case was an award of temporary total disability benefits, and any failure to pay those benefits, whether a reduction in payments or stopping payments altogether, constitutes a failure to pay an award under the terms of a judgment. Thus, a $3,000.00 penalty is authorized.

Section 23:1201(G) requires a 24% or $100-per-day penalty plus reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid after thirty days, unless the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Trahan v. Coke United · filed 2003-12-10(G)

Thus, in the instant case, the oral recitation of the October 21, 2002 settlement agreement by Mr. Trahan and Coca Cola in open court is a final, nonappealable judgment for purposes of La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... Coca Cola did not authorize payment within thirty days after October 21, 2002, instead making such authorization contingent on the signing of the receipt and release. ... Its nonpayment was not due to conditions beyond its control but due to its misunderstanding of the nature of its obligation.

Subsection (G) imposes a 24% or per-day penalty, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid for more than thirty days, unless the nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United · filed 2003-12-10(G)

Where the “nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control,” the employer is not required to pay penalties and attorney fees. La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... Its nonpayment was not due to conditions beyond its control but due to its misunderstanding of the nature of its obligation.

Subsection (G) applies to a final, non-appealable judgment and does not allow a judgment to become final piecemeal while a timely supreme-court writ application is pending; because the statute is penal, it must be strictly construed.

Sterling v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. · filed 2004-11-10(G)

We agree with Appellee that La. R.S. 23:1201(G) pertains to a “final, non-appealable judgment” and that there is nothing in the law suggesting that this provision should somehow be interpreted to mean that only those portions of a judgment which are the precise subject of a writ application would be suspended pending their disposition by the supreme court. Moreover, since this statute is penal in nature, it must be strictly construed by the courts.

Section 23:1201(G) treats an enforceable settlement as a final, non-appealable judgment and requires penalties and attorney fees when the award remains unpaid for more than thirty days, subject to the statute's calculation rules.

Young v. Jack in the Box, Inc. · filed 2006-05-03(G)

We also find the settlement constituted a final, non-appealable judgment under La.R.S. 23:1201(G), and pursuant to that statute, we award penalties of $4,959.87 and attorney fees of $7,500.00.

Under § 23:1201(G), a workers’ compensation compromise recited in open court can constitute an award payable under a final, non-appealable judgment, so penalties and attorney fees accrue if it remains unpaid for thirty days; § 23:1201(E) applies only to insurers and employers, not LIGA.

Bennett v. Daigre's Automotive, Inc. · filed 2006-05-03(G), (E)

The August 11, 2005 compromise between Mr. Bennett and the defendants constituted |san award payable and non-appeal-able — the agreed upon penalties and the SEB, which was to have been continued from January 1, 2005. When the defendants failed to bring Mr. Bennett up to date within thirty days, they exposed themselves to additional penalties and attorney’s fees. ... LIGA claims it is immune from penalties and attorney fees. La.R.S. 23:1201(E) and La.R.S. 23:1201.2 are punitive in nature and require strict construction. They apply to only “insurers” and “employers.” LIGA is considered an “association.” Strict construction | cidictates that LIGA is an entity not intended to be included within the meaning of the statutes. ... Nevertheless, we are bound the rule of jurisprudence constante and cannot assess penalties and attorney’s fees against LIGA. However, Daigre’s has no such protection.

Section 23:1201(F)'s $8,000 aggregate cap applies to penalties for claims under subsection (F), not to the separate penalty for late payment of a final, nonappealable judgment under subsection (G), while subsection (I) permits a penalty and reasonable attorney fees for arbitrary, capricious, or unjustified discontinuance of benefits.

Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Board · filed 2006-09-27(F), (G), and (I)

Because LPSB’s unilateral discontinuance of Ms. Broussard’s TTD benefits violated the June 11, 2003 OWC order, La.R.S. 23:1310.8, La.R.S. 23:1201(I), and consistent jurisprudence, we affirm the $3,000.00 penalty assessed against LPSB. We also affirm the award of $2,500.00 for attorney fees, as La.R.S. 23:1201(I) specifically allows for an assessment of attorney fees against an employer found in violation of that subsection of the statute. ... There is no maximum penalty for a violation of La.R.S. 23:1201(G) when the WCJ chooses to penalize the employer by imposing a penalty equal to twenty-four percent of the amount due. ... Since La.R.S. 23:1201(F) refers to claims made by employees against employers for either nonpayment or untimely payment of benefits owed or for not consenting to provide medical benefits, the penalty provision of that subsection setting an $8,000.00 limit for violations of that subsection does not apply to La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... We, therefore, find no manifest or legal error in the OWC judgment assessing penalties greater than $8,000.00 in the aggregate against LPSB for violating La.R.S. 23:1201(G) and La.R.S. 23:1201(I).

Subsection (F)'s $8,000 penalty cap applies to claims for unpaid or untimely benefits, but not to the separate penalty under subsection (G) for untimely payment of a final, nonappealable judgment; subsection (G)'s 24-percent penalty has no stated maximum.

Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Bd. · filed 2006-09-27(F), (G), and (I)

Since La.R.S. 23:1201(F) refers to claims made by employees against employers for either nonpayment or untimely payment of benefits owed or for not consenting to provide medical benefits, the penalty provision of that subsection setting an $8,000.00 limit for violations of that subsection does not apply to La.R.S. 23:1201(G). Subsection G refers to the untimely payment of a final, nonappealable judgment. There is no limit on the amount of the penalty that can be levied against an employer when the OWC chooses to assess the penalty at twenty-four percent of the unpaid award. Subsection F also refers more generally to claims for nonpayment of benefits, whereas subsection G refers more specifically to the untimely payment of final judgments of the OWC. We, therefore, find no manifest or legal error in the OWC judgment assessing penalties greater than $8,000.00 in the aggregate against LPSB for violating La. R.S. 23:1201(G) and La. R.S. 23:1201(I).

Section 23:1201(G) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer unjustifiably delays accurate and timely payment of a workers’ compensation award.

Olivier v. After Crash, Inc. · filed 2007-04-04(G)

Similarly, we find no error in the workers compensation award of past due benefits of $2,161.55, a penalty of $5,843.55, and a $7,000.00 attorney fee. The record clearly reflects LUBA’s inexplicable delay in initiating payment under the judgment and its blatant disregard for accuracy, timeliness, and responsibility; hence, we find no error in these awards.

Section 23:1201(G)’s penalties for an unpaid compromise judgment are available only after the compromise is approved under §23:1272(A).

Dr. Joe E. Turk v. the Moody Company · filed 2009-05-06(G)

Thus, based on the language of La.R.S. 23:1034.2(F)(1), to effect a compromise that will be subject to the penalty provisions of La.R.S. 23:1201(G), Dr. Turk was required to comply with the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1272(A). He did not so comply.

Section 23:1201(G) applies its penalties for unpaid final judgments to employers and insurers, not to an attorney sanctioned by the workers’ compensation court.

Dufour v. River City Management, Inc. · filed 2007-11-28(G)

Clearly, the statute, when read as a whole, was intended to apply to nonpayment of a judgment by employers and their insurers.

Subsection (G) requires payment of an award under a final, nonappealable judgment within thirty days and makes penalties and attorney fees automatic for employer-controlled late payment, but not for delays caused by conditions beyond the employer's control.

Fontenot v. David Sonnier D/B/A David's Mini Mart · filed 2010-04-07(G), (F)

We disagree with Mr. Sonnier’s interpretation of this statute. First off, the language “shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted” does not apply to this subsection, as it does to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). Subsection F applies to the actions of the employer prior to a final judgment/settlement being obtained, whereas Subsection G applies to the actions of the employer subsequent to such a time. ... If the WCJ finds that the employer had no control over the delay, then no penalties and attorney fees are awarded. However, if the delay resulted from the employer’s own actions, then the award is automatic. ... The inclusion of a deadline was unnecessary as La.R.S. 23:1201(G) provided the thirty-day deadline. Furthermore, the amount paid by Mr. Sonnier depended on his success in negotiating lower payments, so long as all payments were satisfied within the thirty days. A failure to lower the amount within that time period would result in a payment of the full amount listed.

Section 23:1201(G) requires a penalty and reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is unpaid for more than 30 days, subject to the statutory exception and penalty cap.

Tyson v. Thompson Home Health · filed 2011-03-16(G)

When a settlement constitutes a final, non-appealable judgment, whether the claimant is entitled to penalties and attorney fees is governed by La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... Section 1201(G) provides that if any award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within 30 days, a penalty of 24 percent or $100.00 per day plus reasonable attorney fees shall be added, unless the failure to pay arises from conditions over which the employer had no control. The $100.00 per day penalty is capped at $3,000.00 in aggregate.

Subsection (G) mandates a penalty for failing to pay the full amount of a final judgment within thirty days unless the nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s control, and a clerical or adjuster error does not qualify.

Richard v. Coastal Culvert & Supply, Inc. · filed 2011-10-05(G)

Here, while we recognize that the underpayment of ninety cents seems like an insubstantial amount, the penalty assessed in La.R.S. 23:1201(G) is mandatory, and the statute makes no distinction between small infractions versus large infractions where the employer fails to pay the full amount of a judgment. As indicated, in order to avoid a penalty under La.R.S. 23:1201(G), the employer must show that the underpayment is due to a condition beyond the employer’s control. A clerical error or adjuster’s oversight is not a condition “beyond the employer’s control,” which is the standard to which we are confined in this case.

Section 23:1201(G) permits only one penalty and attorney-fee award for the untimely payment of a single underlying judgment; the unpaid balance after that award does not create a second occurrence or penalty.

Olivier v. Olivier Builders · filed 2012-11-07(G)

The fact that LUBA did not pay the underlying judgment in full after the May 6, 2011 Consent Judgment (which only addressed penalties and attorney fees) is irrelevant, does not constitute another occurrence, and cannot result in the imposition of a second La.R.S. 23:1201(G) penalty.

Section 23:1201(G) applies to an oral compromise recited in open court that constitutes a final, nonappealable judgment, and requires the greater of the statutory penalty calculations when payment is late; financial difficulty is not a condition beyond the employer’s control.

Flores v. a & Z Tobacco, LLC, D/B/A Pak a Sak · filed 2014-11-19(G)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(G) only applies when there is a final and nonappealable judgment. ... A review of the record in the present case discloses that all the elements of a compromise were met; the compromise was recited in open court and capable of transcription from the record on June 24, 2013. At that point the agreement became enforceable and constituted a final and nonappealable judgment. ... Failure to secure funding to pay this workers’ compensation claim timely is not a condition beyond the employer’s control. ... Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G), we are mandated to increase the penalty award to $5,271.48 as the greater penalty.

Section 23:1201(G) requires a penalty when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is paid more than 30 days after becoming due, calculated using the greater of 24% of the award or $100 per day, with reasonable attorney fees, unless nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Flores v. A & Z Tobacco, LLC · filed 2014-11-19(G)

If any award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such award an amount equal to twenty-four percent thereof or one hundred dollars per day together with reasonable attorney fees, for each calendar day after thirty days it remains unpaid, whichever is greater, which shall be paid at the same time as, and in addition to, such award, unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. No amount paid as a penalty under this Subsection shall be included in any formula utilized to establish premium rates for workers’ compensation insurance. The total one hundred dollar per calendar day penalty provided for in this Subsection shall not exceed three thousand dollars in the aggregate. ... The payment by A & Z was two days late, so the $100.00 a day penalty results in a $200.00 penalty. Whereas, 24% of the total stipulated amount of $21,964.49 is $5,271.48. Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G), we are mandated to increase the penalty award to $5,271.48 as the greater penalty.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes a 24% penalty for compensation unpaid for 30 days after it becomes due under a final, nonappealable judgment, and the provision applies to consent judgments but not lump-sum settlements.

Geason v. Harmony Const. · filed 1995-11-15(F)

The issues on appeal are: (1) does the 30-day requirement for payment in La.R.S. 23:1201(F) apply, and (2) if so, then has Geason waived that provision? The trial judge concluded the statute did not apply to a lump sum settlement. We agree the statute does not apply to a settlement but conclude it does apply to a consent judgment.

Subsection (F) requires a penalty when compensation due under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid beyond thirty days, subject to the statutory exceptions; the court upheld the 24% penalty where no valid reason for the delay existed.

Eglin v. United Gas Pipeline · filed 1996-01-24(F)

La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that: ... If any compensation or medical benefits payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such unpaid compensation an amount equal to twenty-four percent thereof or one hundred dollars per day, for each calendar day after thirty days it remains unpaid, whichever is greater, which shall be paid at the same time as, and in addition to, such compensation, unless the order is appealed as provided by law or unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes a 24% penalty on compensation unpaid more than 30 days after it becomes due under a final, nonappealable judgment, unless the order is appealed or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control, with entitlement strictly construed against the claimant.

Prevost v. Jobbers Oil Transport Co. · filed 1998-06-29(F)

In May 1991, the date of claimant's accident, La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provided in pertinent part: ... If any compensation payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such unpaid compensation an amount equal to twenty-four percent thereof, which shall be paid at the same time as, and in addition to, such compensation, unless the order is appealed as provided by law or unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer has no control.

Section 23:1201(G) provides a single 24% penalty or $100 per day for late payment of a final, nonappealable judgment, whichever is greater, with the $100-per-day penalty capped at $3,000.

Shell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2001-03-21(G)

For the reasons which follow, we hold that a workers' compensation judge does not have the option to award a daily, or per diem, amount equal to twenty-four percent of the unpaid judgment.

Section 23:1201(G)'s postjudgment penalty does not begin to run when parties stipulate to an award; the stipulation must become part of a final, nonappealable judgment.

Fabacher v. Stine, Inc. · filed 2013-10-09(G)

Although the stipulations had the effect of a judicial confession and were binding on Stine, they did not become a part of a final, nonappealable judgment until they and the WCJ‘s other findings were reduced to writing and rendered by the WCJ as part of her December 27, 2012 judgment.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to pay benefits due, but not when the claim is reasonably controverted; a claim is reasonably controverted when supported by a nonfrivolous legal dispute or countervailing factual or medical information.

Tuckerson v. Holiday Retirement Corp. · filed 2004-12-28(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for assessment of a penalty and attorney fees where the employer or insurer has refused or failed to pay benefits due. However, the penalty and attorney fees do not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted. Thus, to determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted and preclude the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control; ordinary clerical or administrative lapses do not qualify.

LaFleur v. Alec Elec. · filed 2004-12-30(F)(2)

If an employer fails to make payment in accordance with this statute, subsection La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that the employer shall be assessed a penalty and reasonable attorney fees. However, subsection (F)(2) provides that penalties and attorney fees shall not be imposed if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over ... which the employer or insurer had no control. ... The WCJ found that the February 1, 2002 conversion to monthly payments was a violation of 23:1201(A), since Lafleur's wages were paid on a weekly basis when he was working and there was no agreement between the parties to pay the wages at a different time, and the court did not find that the nonpayment resulted from conditions over which Alec Electric had no control. As such, the trial court did not err in awarding penalties and attorney fees to Lafleur.

Section 23:1201(F) requires a penalty and reasonable attorney fees when an employer fails to consent to an employee’s selection of a treating physician, unless the claim was reasonably controverted.

Boothe v. Roofing Supply, Inc. of Monroe · filed 2005-01-20(F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) directs that failure to consent to the employee’s request to select a treating physician shall result in the assessment of a penalty which shall not exceed a maximum of two thousand dollars for any claim together with reasonable attorney fees. If the claim is reasonably controverted, penalties and attorney’s fees shall not be awarded. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... An employer reasonably controverts a claim if the employer possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant. Thomason, supra. ... However, our review of this entire *127record reveals no manifest error or abuse of discretion in the WCJ’s finding, essentially, that Roofing Supply and LUBA, through the claims adjuster, did not reasonably controvert Boothe’s request to see the doctor, notwithstanding the elapsed time between his last treatment and the request for additional medical care.

Section 23:1201(G) requires penalties and attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due, unless the nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Trahan v. COCO COLA BOTTLING CO. UNITED · filed 2005-03-02(G)

Because the compromise was a final, nonappealable judgment and defendant's failure to pay the award within thirty days after it became due did not result from conditions over which it had no control, the hearing officer did not err in awarding claimant penalties and attorney fees as provided by La. R.S. 23:1201(G).

Section 23:1201(F) requires a penalty and reasonable attorney fees when supplemental earnings benefits are not provided as required, unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Poole v. Terrell Musgrove Siding & Gutter · filed 2005-11-29(F)

Failure to provide supplemental earnings benefits in accordance with La. R.S. 23:1201 shall result in the assessment of a penalty and reasonable attorney fees unless the claim is reasonably controverted. La. R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) requires a penalty for failure to pay benefits as required, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Hammock v. Weyerhaeuser · filed 2005-12-14(F)(2)

With regard to the award of statutory penalties, we conclude that the WCJ was not manifestly erroneous in finding that the employer failed to reasonably controvert Hammock's claim.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer does not reasonably controvert a claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits.

Jackson v. CHRISTUS HEALTH CENTRAL LOUIS. · filed 2006-02-01(F)

[T]o determine whether the claimant's right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer ... 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. ... Basically, while Cabrini did possess medical information early on to support a lack of causation, the information Cabrini possessed was insufficient to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by Ms. Jackson throughout the time Cabrini refused to pay benefits. Thus, the WCJ was not manifestly erroneous in awarding Ms. Jackson penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) does not require penalties or attorney's fees for a claim when the employer reasonably controverted it and acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously.

Grillette v. Alliance Compressors · filed 2006-02-01(F)

Having found that Grillette failed to meet her burden of proving entitlement to SEB, we further find that Alliance reasonably controverted Grillette's claims and that its actions were neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, we reverse the award of penalties and attorney's fees related to this issue.

Subsection F permits penalties for unpaid medical benefits and reasonable attorney fees, subject to the statutory penalty limits, unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Reed v. Abshire · filed 2006-02-01(F)

Risk Management refused to authorize treatment by Dr. Lopez for more than forty days, therefore, Reed is entitled to the maximum penalty of $2,000. We further find that Reed is entitled to attorney fees in the amount of $7,500, for work performed at the trial and appellate levels.

Section 23:1201 bars penalties and attorney fees when an employer reasonably controverts a workers' compensation claim by having a valid reason, a non-frivolous legal dispute, or factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant's evidence.

Arias v. Certified Coating, Inc. · filed 2006-02-14

When an employer has failed to pay benefits the proper standard for review of that decision is whether the employer reasonably controverted the claim. Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885. A claim for workers' compensation is reasonably controverted if the employer has some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits. Thus, to determine whether the claimant's right to benefits has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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 he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed. Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., supra.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to pay benefits due, unless the claim was reasonably controverted through a nonfrivolous legal dispute or sufficiently countervailing factual or medical information.

Hughes v. New Orleans Saints & LWCC · filed 2006-02-27(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for assessment of a penalty and attorney fees where the employer or insurer has refused or failed to pay benefits due. However, the penalty and attorney fees do not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted. To determine whether the claimant's right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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.

Subsection (F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when an employer reasonably controverts a claim for benefits.

Reeves v. I. M. C. · filed 2006-04-05(F)(2)

However, pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2), penalties and attorney fees are not due where the employer reasonably controverts the claim for benefits. ... Thus, IMC did not reasonably controvert Mr. Reeves’ claim for benefits.

(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when an employer reasonably controverts a benefits claim; when the employer does not reasonably controvert the claim, those sanctions may be awarded.

Reeves v. International Maintenance Corp. · filed 2006-04-05(F)(2)

However, pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2), penalties and attorney fees are not due where the employer reasonably controverts the claim for benefits. ... Thus, when IMC reduced Mr. Reeves’ benefits, the information it had was stale. ... Thus, IMC did not reasonably controvert Mr. Reeves’ claim for benefits. ... Because IMC did not reasonably controvert Mr. Reeves’ claim for weekly disability benefits, we award Mr. Reeves $2,000.00 in penalties and $2,000.00 in attorney fees in connection with the reduction in his benefits.

The reasonable-controversion exception prevents penalties and attorney fees when the employer or insurer has a nonfrivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information reasonably countering the claimant's demand, but the obligation to pay arises once later information makes the controversion unreasonable.

Thonn v. Slidell Memorial Hospital · filed 2006-04-05(F)(2)

Thus, to determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S, 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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.... If an employer or insurer reasonably controverts a claim and then becomes aware of information that makes his controversion of that claim unreasonable, he must then pay the benefits owed or be subject to penalties and attorney fees from that point forward.

An enforceable written compromise that constitutes a final, non-appealable judgment is an award under § 23:1201(G), triggering penalties and attorney fees when payment is more than thirty days late.

Young v. Jack in the Box, Inc. · filed 2006-05-03(G)

The employer below argued the settlement was not recited in open court, but was a written agreement. We find this distinction irrelevant, as La.Civ.Code art. 3071 provides the same legal effect for written settlements and settlements recited in open court. We find nothing in Trahan to indicate any distinction between the two forms of compromise under article 3071.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) excuses an employer from statutory penalties and attorney fees when its failure to authorize or pay for recommended surgery within the 60-day period is attributable to conditions beyond the employer's control.

Dupree v. International House of Pancakes · filed 2006-05-05(F)(2)

The record thus demonstrates that IHOP scheduled the second opinion evaluation of March 25, 2004 within the 60-day statutory deadline, but was prevented from obtaining the benefit of that opinion due to claimant's initial refusal to attend the appointment. Its failure to authorize or make payment for the recommended surgery within 60 days of January 30, 2004 can only be considered as attributable to "conditions over which the employer . . . had no control." La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). The WCJ's decision that claimant was not entitled to statutory penalties and attorney fees is fully supported by the record and cannot be considered manifestly erroneous.

Section 23:1201 makes penalties and attorney fees the exclusive remedy for an employer's misconduct in administering workers' compensation claims, including failure to timely authorize and pay for medically necessary treatment.

Leboeuf v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2006-04-05

The Act also contains a provision for penalties and attorney fees as an exclusive remedy for an employer's misconduct in administering compensation claims, including the failure to timely authorize and pay for medically necessary treatment. La. R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees for arbitrary termination of benefits or failure to pay or authorize treatment, but not when the claim is reasonably controverted.

Brantley v. Delta Ridge Implement, Inc. · filed 2006-06-28(I), (F)

Statutory provisions allowing penalties and attorney fees are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. ... Whether or not a refusal to pay is arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause depends primarily on the facts known to the employer or insurer at the time of its action. ... If there is conflicting evidence, an employer is not arbitrary or capricious in reaching its decision to deny or terminate benefits. ... Delta was reasonable to terminate indemnity benefits upon receipt of the FCE and Dr. Spires' report; based upon the totality of the evidence, we detect no error in the WCJ's rulings on these questions. ... Given that the claimant had already been evaluated by three physicians, none of whom recommended surgical intervention, and that an FCE reported that he could return to doing heavy work, Delta was reasonable to request further proof that a visit to a fourth doctor was necessary. ... Based on this information, the claimant's request for surgery was clearly reasonably controverted by Delta. Although his physical condition may have been well-understood by the physicians, the doctors disagreed about the appropriate course of treatment. The WCJ did not err in finding that this claim was reasonably controverted and that no penalties or attorney fees were due.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees for an employer's failure to pay owed compensation or medical benefits unless the employer reasonably controverted the claim, which requires sufficient factual or medical information to counter the claimant's evidence.

Battle v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. · filed 2006-06-28(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. La. R.S. 23:1201(F). To reasonably controvert a claim, the employer must have sufficient factual or medical information to reasonably counter the evidence provided by claimant.

Subsection (F) requires a penalty and attorney fees when an employer unreasonably fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits timely.

Anthony F. Elie, Sr. v. Sears Roebuck and Company · 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). ... As stated earlier, this argument is baseless, and the WCJ erred in not awarding a $2,000.00 penalty and $2,000.00 in attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F) for this failure.

Section 23:1201(E) imposes statutory penalties when an employer or insurer voluntarily fails to pay benefits without evidence reasonably controverting the employee's entitlement.

Hubbard v. Allied Building Stores, Inc. · filed 2006-11-01(E)

Additionally, an employer or insurer is liable for statutory penalties if it volitionally failed to pay benefits without evidence to reasonably controvert the employee's right to such benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(E). To reasonably controvert an employee's right to benefits, the factual and medical information possessed by the employer or insurer must reasonably counter that of the claimant.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) does not protect an employer from penalties and attorney fees when its investigation is merely defensive and lacks timely, relevant medical evidence.

Chaisson v. Cingular Wireless · filed 2006-11-02(F)(2)

In its second assignment or error, Cingular argues that the WCJ erred in awarding penalties and attorney fees, contending that it reasonably controverted the claim under La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) by hiring Dr. Hutcheson to perform an ergonomic analysis. ... The determination of whether an employer should be cast with penalties and attorney fees is essentially a question of fact, and the trial court’s finding must not be disturbed on appeal absent manifest error. ... Cingular contends that it sufficiently investigated this claim by hiring Dr. Hutcheson and that its denial is supported by his conclusions. However, Dr. Hutcheson did not render his report until June of 2005, almost one year and a half after the claim was initially denied in December of 2003. ... We find no error in this reasoning, given the emphasis that the jurisprudence places on medical evidence in occupational disease cases. Accordingly, the award of penalties and attorney fees is affirmed.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits when the claim was not reasonably controverted and the nonpayment was not beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Guillory v. Bofinger's Tree Service · filed 2006-11-03(F)

However, the proper inquiry is whether the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the defendants' control. See La. R.S. 23:1201 F. The fact that the LWCC adjustor was unaware of the change in the mileage reimbursement rate was not a valid reason for the nonpayment of the thirty-nine cents owed. Further, defendants' reliance on the fact that opposing counsel requested reimbursement at the rate of thirty-two cents is misplaced, because that was the correct reimbursement rate at the time of the request. Defendants failed either to reasonably controvert the claim or to show the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond their control. Accordingly, despite the fact that the nonpayment was for only thirty-nine cents, we cannot say the OWC judge committed manifest error or was clearly wrong in assessing penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for failure to authorize necessary medical treatment unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Figgins v. Wal-Mart · filed 2006-11-15(F)

Appellant maintains that pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), she is entitled to attorney’s fees and penalties for Appellee’s failure to authorize medical treatment. ... Thus we conclude that a failure to authorize treatment can result in the imposition of penalties and attorney fees except when the claim is reasonably controverted. ... In order to reasonably controvert a claim, a defendant must prove that there was a reasonable basis for its denial of benefits. ... As stated earlier, and for the reasons aforementioned, we find that Appellee was arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause in its denial of medical treatment. Accordingly, we award Appellant penalties and attorney’s fees in the total amount of $5,000.00, including work done at the trial level and on appeal.

Section 23:1201(E) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer fails to pay awarded benefits within 60 days, unless the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Baker v. Speedway Super America, LLC · filed 2006-11-17(E)

As such, the defendant violated La. R.S. 23:1201(E) when they failed to pay Ms. Baker’s medical expenses within sixty days and failed to reasonably controvert her claim for prescription expenses. Violation of La. R.S. 23:1201(E) states that penalties [$50 per day/maximum $2,000] together with reasonable attorneys fees shall be awarded against the employer/carrier ... if they fail to pay any awarded benefits within sixty [60] days after it becomes due unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control.

Section 23:1201(F) places penalties and attorney fees on the employer or insurer according to fault, but bars them when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Rave v. Wampold Companies · filed 2006-12-06(F)

More specifically, pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), penalties and attorney fees are assessed against either the employer or the insurer, depending upon fault, and they will not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if the employer or insurer can show that nonpayment resulted from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.

Section 23:1201(F) allows penalties and attorney fees to be assessed against either the employer or the insurer, depending on fault, but not against both.

McClure v. City of Pineville · filed 2006-12-06(F)

La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for the assessment of penalties and attorney fees "against either the employer or the insurer, depending upon fault." The disjunctive "or" limits the assessment of penalties and attorney fees against the employer or the insurer, not both.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for unpaid workers’ compensation benefits, but not when the employer reasonably controverts the claim based on an articulable and objective reason.

Baca v. Natchitoches Parish Hosp. · filed 2007-02-07(F)

We note that Hollingsworth waited approximately two months before contacting Dr. Goodman concerning Baca's treatment with him. Nonetheless, Dr. Goodman's answer to the questionnaire and the notation in Baca's medical records that Baca's injury resulted from playing volleyball, gave the Hospital an "articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took the action." Landry, 920 So.2d at 311 (quoting Authement v. Shappert Eng., 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), 840 So.2d 1181, 1188). Therefore, we find no manifest error in the workers' compensation judge's determination that the Hospital reasonably controverted Baca's claim and that the assessment of penalties and attorney's fees for the failure to pay Baca's medical bills was unwarranted.

Subsection (I) permits a reasonable attorney-fee award when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues benefits.

Courville v. Sci Louisiana Funeral Service · filed 2007-03-07(I)

Furthermore, we award Courville $8000 in attorney’s fees for work performed at the lower level and on appeal. La.R.S. 23:1201(I).

Subsection (F) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees for untimely benefit payments unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Lee v. Heritage Manor of Bossier City · filed 2007-03-14(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for the assessment of a penalty and reasonable attorney fees against the employer or insurer for the failure to timely commence or timely continue paying benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted, while subsection (I) permits a penalty and attorney fee when discontinued payments were arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Ocon v. Regency Motors of Metairie, LLC · filed 2007-04-11(F), (I)

Under Section 23:1201(F), unless reasonably controverted, failure to provide payment in accordance with any of the provisions of Section 1201 shall result in the imposition of penalties within the statutory limits and reasonable attorney fees. ... Thus, we find that the imposition of $6,000 in penalties for termination of medical and indemnity benefits was unwarranted. ... Finally, we fail to find, under the facts of this particular case, that the claimant was entitled to an award of attorney's fees. The record shows that the employer had a reasonable basis to question the claimant's award of benefits, and we fail to find the employer's actions to be arbitrary and capricious so as to subject them to the imposition of attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201(G) allows statutory penalties and attorney fees when a consent compromise judgment qualifies as a final, non-appealable judgment, subject to the statute's exceptions for reasonably controverted claims or nonpayment beyond the employer's control.

Sims v. BFI WASTE SERVICES, LLC · filed 2007-05-16(G)

A consent judgment of compromise may constitute a "final, non-appealable judgment" for purposes of imposition of statutory penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(G).

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the failure resulted from conduct beyond the employer's or insurer's control; a reasonable controversion requires a valid reason or evidence supporting the denial.

Vidrine v. La-Tex Rubber & Specialties, Inc. · filed 2007-05-30(F)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201 ( F), penalties and attorney fees for a failure to properly pay benefits shall be assessed 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 defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits. See Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La. 12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885. The decision to impose penalties and attorney fees is essentially a factual issue subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. Authement v. Shappert Eng’g, 02-1631 (La. 2/25/03), 840 So.2d 1181. In this case, we find that La-Tex did indeed have a valid reason to base the denial of benefits and that the workers’ compensation judge erred in finding that it failed to reasonably controvert Mr. Vidrine’s claims.

Section 23:1201(F) does not require penalties and attorney fees when the employer’s mistaken classification of the claimant had a reasonable factual basis and the claim was not frivolously denied.

Reynolds Industrial Contractors v. Fox · filed 2006-06-28(F)

Therefore, the classification of Fox as seasonal under these circumstances, while erroneous, is not without any basis of support. ... The remainder of the judgment denying Fox's request for penalties and attorney fees is affirmed.

Subsection (I) permits penalties of up to $8,000 together with reasonable attorney fees for an improper reduction of workers’ compensation benefits.

Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries v. Wallace · filed 2007-10-10(I)

Thus, penalties were awarded pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(I), which allows penalties up to $8,000.00 and attorney fees. The amount award by the WCJ will not be disturbed unless we find that the WCJ abused her discretion. ... We do not find an abuse of discretion in the awards of penalties and attorney fees, and will not disturb the finding of the WCJ.

Section 23:1201 requires penalties and attorney fees for untimely workers’ compensation payments unless the employer has a reasonable, evidence-based basis to controvert the claim.

Lemons v. Georgia Pacific Corp. · filed 2008-02-13

Failure to make timely payments subjects an employer to penalties and attorney fees unless the claim is reasonably controverted. La. R.S. 23:1201. For a claim to be reasonably controverted, an employer must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base its denial of benefits. Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885. The employer must have engaged in a non-frivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the information presented by the claimant. Id. ... Such an argument ignores the above discussed law that an employer is liable for an aggravation of a work-related injury. An employer cannot deny a claim simply because a second accident may have contributed to the injury. This is particularly true when the claimant's physician was of the clear opinion that the injury was work-related. Without evidence that would create a reasonable challenge to Dr. Gleason's opinion, we cannot say that the WCJ was clearly wrong in assessing Defendant penalties and attorney fees.

Subsection (F) permits penalties for unpaid medical benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted; subsection (I) requires an arbitrary, capricious, or baseless discontinuance of benefits; and subsection (J) governs attorney-fee awards for violations under the section.

Marion Thomas Terral, Jr. v. Justiss Oil Company, Inc. · filed 2008-03-05(F), (I), and (J)

F. Failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section or failure to consent to the employee’s request to select a treating physician or change physicians when such consent is required by R.S. 23:1121 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 or such consent is withheld, 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. ... (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. ... Any employer or insurer who at any time discontinues payment of claims due and arising under this Chapter, when such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, shall be subject to the payment of a penalty not to exceed eight thousand dollars and a reasonable attorney fee for the prosecution and collection of such claims. ... For the reasons discussed above, we find that Justiss Oil reasonably controverted the request for the MRIs and the surgical request of Dr. Gunderson on the basis of lack of causation. ... For the reasons set forth above, we find that Justiss Oil was not arbitrary and capricious in its handling of Mr. Terral’s claims. Having found that the employer reasonably controverted the claims asserted by Mr. Terral, the WCJ was not clearly wrong in denying his claim for attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for failure to pay or provide workers' compensation benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted, subsection (I) penalizes arbitrary or capricious discontinuance of benefits, and subsection (J) limits an eligible hearing to one attorney-fee award.

Terral v. JUSTISS OIL CO. INC. · filed 2008-03-05(F), (I), (J)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1203 requires an employer to provide all reasonable and necessary medical treatment to an employee who sustains a work related injury. Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides for the imposition of a penalty when an employer fails to fulfill this obligation. However, the medical treatment must be causally related to the work-related injury, and it must be appropriate. Fritz v. Home Furniture-Lafayette, 95-1705 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/24/96), 677 So.2d 1132. ... For the reasons discussed above, we find that Justiss Oil reasonably controverted the request for the MRIs and the surgical request of Dr. Gunderson on the basis of lack of causation. Our review of the record, at the very least, presents two permissible views of the evidence thereby negating Mr. Terral's claim that the WCJ was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties for failure to pay benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the conduct was beyond the employer's or insurer's control, and permits penalties and attorney fees for failure to authorize requested medical treatment.

Honeycutt v. HENRY'S PLUMBING · filed 2008-04-02(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.

Section 23:1201(F) and (I) require penalties and attorney fees for failure to provide workers' compensation benefits, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Hayes v. New Orleans Voodoo Football, Inc. · filed 2008-04-29(F) and (I)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F) and (I), failure to provide benefits shall result in the assessment of penalties and attorney fees. This provision 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.

Section 23:1201(I) imposes penalties and attorney fees for arbitrary, capricious, or baseless discontinuance of benefits, while subsection (F) allows them for failing to provide causally related, appropriate medical treatment.

Amos v. Ouachita Parish Police Jury · filed 2008-06-18(I), (F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for the imposition of penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to fulfill this obligation. ... Whether a refusal to pay is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause depends primarily on the facts known to the employer or insurer at the time of its action. ... In the instant case, an award of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(I) is not warranted. ... We likewise find no basis for an award of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(F). While we agree that claimant's lung disability was work-related, under the circumstances of this case, it was not unreasonable for defendant to question its connection to claimant's employment.

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

Poole v. GUY HOPKINS CONST. · filed 2007-11-02(F)

Considering the evidence presented, we conclude that the WCJ did not manifestly err in finding that Guy Hopkins had no objective reasons for failing to timely pay the UMC bill. Thus, the award of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(F) was proper.

Section 23:1201(F) and (I) bars penalties and attorney fees when an employer reasonably controverts a claim by presenting a nonfrivolous legal dispute or supporting factual or medical information.

Cortez v. East Jefferson General Hospital · filed 2009-01-13(F) and (I)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F) and (I), failure to provide benefits shall result in the assessment of penalties and attorney fees. This provision 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. Id. In construing the term “reasonably controverted” as contemplated by the statute, our courts have found that in order to preclude the imposition of penalties and attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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.

Subsection (F) is penal in nature and therefore must be strictly construed.

Johnson v. City of New Orleans Police Department · filed 2009-01-14(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201 F is penal in nature and, therefore, must be strictly construed.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) does not impose penalties and attorney fees when the employer reasonably controverts the claim, including by producing factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant’s evidence.

Buxton v. Iowa Police Dept. · filed 2009-02-04(F)(2)

Failure to pay such benefits shall result in the imposition of a penalty; however, the penalty is not imposed if the claim is reasonably controverted or if nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). When the employer or insurer produces factual or medical information of such a nature that it reasonably counters the claimant’s evidence, a claim is reasonably controverted . Davis v. Jones Baldwin Music Co., 27,545 (La.App. 2 Cir. 11/1/95), 662 So.2d 803. ... When a claim is reasonably controverted, attorneys fees and penalties are not appropriate. Davis, 662 So.2d 803. The court feels that Iowa did present evidence sufficient to reasonably counter Buxton’s claim. There was no treatment of Buxton for any of his complaints between May 26, 2005 and February 25, 2007. A comparison of the two collisions would provide a factual basis for reasonably controverting Buxton’s claim. Therefore, this court can find no error in the workers’ compensation judge’s denial of penalties and attorneys fees.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) exempts an employer from penalties and attorney fees when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions outside the employer's control.

Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Darbonne · filed 2009-02-04(F)(2)

To determine whether the worker’s claim has been reasonably controverted, a workers’ compensation judge must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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.

Section 23:1201(F) requires an employer to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim with sufficient factual and medical information to avoid penalties.

Scott v. City of Pineville · filed 2009-04-01(F)

In order to avoid the imposition of penalties, an employer must reasonably controvert the workers’ compensation claimant’s right to benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). The test to determine if the employer has fulfilled its duty 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 this case, it is clear that Pineville did not have sufficient factual or medical information to deny Mr. Scott’s claims. ... There is no error in the workers’ compensation judge’s award of penalties in this case.

Subsection (F)(2) does not impose a penalty or attorney fee when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Reed v. St. Francis Medical Center · filed 2009-04-08(F)(2)

Failure to consent to the employee’s “request to select a treating physician or change physicians when such consent is required by R.S. 23:1121” shall result in the assessment of a penalty. La. R.S. 23:1201 F. However, the penalty is not imposed “if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” R.S. 23:1201 F(2). To “reasonably controvert” a claim means the employer or insurer had “some valid reason or evidence upon which to base [the] denial of benefits.” ... If the employer or insurer’s conduct arises from a nonfrivolous legal dispute or from factual or medical evidence that reasonably counters the claimant’s showing, the penalty and attorney fee are not imposed. ... St. Francis relied on Dr. Bulloch’s progress note that Ms. Reed was at or near maximum medical improvement; despite her contretemps -with Ms. McClain, Ms. Reed has not shown that the doctor’s medical opinion was faulty or unreliable. ... On this showing, the WCJ was plainly wrong to assess a penalty and attorney fee. The judgment will be reversed.

Section 23:1201 does not impose penalties and attorney fees when the employer reasonably controverts the workers’ compensation claim, and whether it did so is a fact question reviewed for manifest error.

Arnaud v. Shaw Construction · filed 2009-05-06

Whether an employer owes a claimant penalties and attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:1201 is a question of fact that this court will not disturb in the absence of a finding of manifest error. For the same reasons that we upheld the WCJ’s finding that Mr. Arnaud was entitled to SEBs, we likewise uphold the WCJ’s finding that Shaw had nonetheless reasonably controverted Mr. Arnaud’s claim for benefits to the extent that it did not owe him statutory penalties and attorney fees. Just because the WCJ ultimately determined that Shaw’s fraud defense was unfounded, we cannot say that the WCJ’s finding that Shaw had reasonably controverted Mr. Arnaud’s claim based on the entirety of the circumstances was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we deny Mr. Arnaud’s answer to appeal.

Section 23:1201 makes penalties and attorney fees available when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim and its failure to pay is arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause.

Burks v. City Savings Bank · filed 2009-05-06

Penalties and attorney fees are not due to a claimant where the employer has a bona fide dispute as to whether the employee is entitled to benefits. ... An employer will only be responsible for penalties and attorney’s fees if it fails to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim, and if its failure to pay benefits is arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause. La.R.S. 23:1201, 1201.2. ... However, an employer will not be penalized for bringing a close issue to court.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted, meaning the employer had a valid reason or evidence for denying benefits and made a reasonable effort to investigate causation.

Thomas v. Hollywood Casino · filed 2009-05-13(F)(2)

Failure to provide payment of benefits will result in a penalty and attorney fee “unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” La. R.S. 23:1201 F(2); ... The phrase “reasonably controvert” means that the defendant must have “some valid reason or evidence on which to base his denial of benefits.” ... However, the employer disputing causation must demonstrate that it made a reasonable effort to ascertain the cause of the claimant’s condition before it denies benefits.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment of benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim based on sufficient factual or medical information.

Perrilloux v. First Guaranty Bank · filed 2009-10-09(F)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) covers situations where the employer fails to commence payment of benefits or to pay medical benefits timely. Under this section, both penalties and attorney fees are recoverable unless the claim is reasonably controverted. A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual and/or medical information to counter evidence presented by the claimant. Brown v. Texas-LA Callage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 890.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars a penalty for unpaid medical benefits when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment was caused by conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Tida Rose Bourgeois v. Brown's Market & Deli, Inc. · filed 2009-10-14(F)(2)

Failure to pay medical benefits results in the imposition of a penalty; however, the penalty is not imposed if the claim is reasonably controverted or if nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. ... A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer or insurer produces factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant's evidence. ... Brown’s presented only Dr Weitz’s opinion that Bourgeois did not have RSD, but that if she did, a spinal cord stimulator would be an appropriate treatment when all else had failed. There exists a reasonable basis in the record for the imposition of penalties and attorney fees. There is no manifest error in the award.

Section 23:1201 authorizes penalties and attorney fees for specified workers’ compensation payment failures, caps the penalties, bars them when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment is beyond the employer’s control, and limits attorney fees to one reasonable fee.

Williams v. Tioga Manor Nursing Home · filed 2009-11-18(I), (F), (F)(2), and (J)

The 2003 revision of La.R.S. 23:1201 enacted subsection (I), which provides for the imposition of penalties and attorney fees in the event an employer/insurer discontinues the payment of claims to an employee, when such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause. The statute further sets a cap on the penalties awarded under this subsection at $8,000.00. ... Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F), as revised, provides for the imposition of penalties and attorney fees if the employer fails to provide payment of compensation or medical benefits or fails to approve the employee’s request to select a treating physician or change of physician, if approval is required. The statute limits the amount of each penalty to $2,000.00. Although the statute does not limit the actual number of penalties which may be imposed, it caps the total amount which may be awarded based on those penalties at $8,000.00. However, no penalties and attorney fees will be assessed if the employer has reasonably controverted the employee’s claim or if the nonpayment resulted from a condition which was beyond the employer’s control. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) and (I) both allow for the award of reasonable attorney fees in the event penalties are assessed under these two subsections. However, La.R.S. 23:1201(J) limits the attorney fees awarded pursuant to this statute to “one reasonable attorney fee.”

Section 23:1201(F) subjects an employer to penalties and attorney fees for failing to timely pay indemnity or medical benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim.

LeJEUNE v. BELL TOWER CORP. · filed 2010-04-07(F)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), an employer who fails to commence payment of indemnity benefits or to pay medical benefits timely shall be subject to penalties and attorney fees unless the employer reasonably controverts the employee’s claim.

Subsection (F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the employer reasonably controverts the employee’s claim or nonpayment results from a condition beyond the employer’s control.

Robert Minor v. J & J Carpet, Inc. · filed 2010-06-02(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides for the imposition of penalties and attorney fees if the employer fails to provide payment of compensation or medical benefits or fails to approve the employee’s request to select a treating physician or change of physician, if approval is required. The statute limits the amount of each penalty to $2,000.00, but caps the total amount in penalties which may be awarded at $8,000.00. However, no penalties and attorney fees will be assessed if the employer has reasonably controverted the employee’s claim or if the nonpayment resulted from a condition which was beyond the employer’s control. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Section 23:1201(F) subjects an employer to penalties and attorney fees for failing to pay benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Burnett v. Vector Electric & Controls, Inc. · filed 2010-06-02(F)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) subjects an employer to “penalties and attorney fees for failure to pay benefits owed, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if the nonpayment results from conditions beyond the control of the employer or insurer.”

Section 23:1201(F)(4) allows a prevailing health care provider to receive penalties and reasonable attorney fees on a fee-payment claim, but the reasonably-controverted limitation applies to penalties, not attorney fees.

Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center, (Bridget Huie) v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. · filed 2010-10-20(F)(2) and (F)(4)

The phrase “as provided in this Section” of La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(4) encompasses the “reasonably controverted” standard of La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) as it applies to an award of penalties. The award of reasonable attorney fees has no such restriction. That is, once a health care provider prevails on an underpayment claim, the award of attorney fees is discretionary and is not subject to the “reasonably controverted” limitation.

When a health care provider prevails on a claim for payment of its fee, penalties and reasonable attorney fees may be awarded directly to the provider, but recovery is limited to one penalty or attorney fee.

Thomas Medical Group, Apmc (Emil Mallaun) v. Stine, LLC · filed 2010-12-08(F)(4)

In the event that the health care provider prevails on a claim for payment of his fee, penalties as provided in this Section and reasonable attorney fees based upon actual hours worked may be awarded and paid directly to the health care provider.

Subsection (F)(4) permits a prevailing health care provider to receive penalties and reasonable attorney fees based on actual hours worked, but bars recovery of more than one penalty or attorney fee.

Thomas Medical Group, Apmc (Derek McDavid) v. Stine, LLC · filed 2010-12-08(F)(4)

In the event that the health care provider prevails on a claim for payment of his fee, penalties as provided in this Section and reasonable attorney fees based upon actual hours worked may be awarded and paid directly to the health care provider. This Subsection shall not be construed to provide for recovery of more than one penalty or attorney fee.

Section 23:1201 provides penalties and attorney fees for arbitrary or capricious termination of indemnity benefits, failure to reasonably controvert a covered request such as a physician change, and late payment of a final award when the delay is within the employer’s control.

Wilzcewski v. Brookshire Grocery Company · filed 2011-03-16(G), (F), and (I)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(I) provides for the award of statutory penalties and attorney fees based on the employer’s discontinuance of indemnity benefits if the discontinuance is found to be arbitrary and capricious or without probable cause. ... Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides for penalties and attorney fees based on the employer’s failure to reasonably controvert the employee’s request to change physicians when such consent is required by La.R.S. 23:1121.” ... Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(G) raises two questions: (1) was the payment timely, and (2) if not, did the delay result from conditions beyond the employer’s control. The first question results in a straight yes or no answer. The second question delves into the reasons behind the employer’s late payment, which is a finding of fact subject to the manifest error standard of review. If the WCJ finds that the employer had no control over the delay, then no penalties and attorney fees are awarded. However, if the delay resulted from the employer’s own actions, then the award is automatic.

Subsection F limits penalties for a single claim to $2,000 and penalties imposed under F at a hearing to $8,000, but that cap does not aggregate with a separate penalty under subsection I for arbitrary, capricious discontinuation of benefits.

Russell v. H & H Metal Contractors, Inc. · filed 2011-06-01(F) and (I)

As a preliminary matter, we note that this aspect of the penalties does not arise pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), which uses the “reasonably controverted” standard. Instead, H & H discontinued indemnity benefits due to its intoxication defense. Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(I), penalties and attorney fees are appropriate for “discontinu[ation of] payment of claims . . . when such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause[.]” ... However, contrary to H & H’s chief argument, the workers’ compensation judge’s ruling reflects an $8,000.00 penalty for miscalculation of benefits and a separate $8,000.00 penalty for termination of benefits. ... Subsection F limits the total award to $8,000.00. However, penalties were awarded under Subsection F and Subsection I. We find this argument unpersuasive. ... We find merit in this latter argument. As applicable in this case, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) limits penalties to a “maximum of two thousand dollars in the aggregate for any claim.” (Emphasis added). ... Thus, we affirm the workers’ compensation judge’s ruling insofar as it awarded penalties “for failure to pay the correct indemnity benefits from May 21, 2009 through November 5, 2009.” However, we amend the related award for a total penalty of $2,000.00 rather than $8,000.00. ... With regard to the remaining $8,000.00 award for termination of benefits, we have, above, found that the record supports this award pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(I).

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for an employer’s failure to pay workers’ compensation indemnity benefits unless the employee’s claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Sharp v. Landscape Management Services · filed 2011-10-05(F)

The failure to provide the payment of workers’ compensation indemnity benefits will result in an assessment of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), unless the employee’s claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control. ... In this instance, we find no error in the WCJ’s assessment of penalties and attorney fees based on Landscape Managements payment of Mr. Sharp’s indemnity benefits at an incorrect rate. Landscape Management reduced Mr. Sharp’s indemnity benefits to SEBs based on its determination that either of the two customer service representative positions were available to him. When this turned out not to be the case, it did nothing further in assisting Mr. Sharp to find work. ... Accordingly, we affirm the WCJ’s award of penalties and attorney fees to Mr. Sharp.

Section 23:1201(I) authorizes penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer or insurer arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues payment of claims due under the Workers’ Compensation Chapter without probable cause.

Poissenot v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office · filed 2011-01-26(I)

Therefore, the lower courts erred in awarding him SEBs and, because he is not entitled to SEBs, he cannot be awarded penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(1).

Section 23:1201 requires timely payment of indemnity and medical benefits and permits penalties and attorney fees for nonpayment unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment was beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Weaver v. Southern Erectors, Inc. of Florida · filed 2010-12-08(B), (E), and (F)

The statute governing payment of benefits, La.R.S. 23:1201, also provides for penalties and attorney fees under certain circumstances. The applicable provisions regarding payment of benefits state: ... B. The first installment of compensation payable for temporary total disability, permanent total disability, or death shall become due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the injury or death, on which date all such compensation then due shall be paid. ... E. Medical benefits payable under this Chapter shall be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives written notice thereof. ... Furthermore, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides, in pertinent part: ... Failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section ... 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 or such consent is withheld, 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. ... (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 carefully examining the WCJ’s reasons and for reasons fully expressed in this opinion, we find no manifest error in the WCJ’s award of penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to timely commence indemnity benefits or pay medical benefits, unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim.

Williams v. State of Louisiana, Thru the Dept. of Social Services · filed 2011-10-05(F)

Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), an employer who fails to commence payment of indemnity benefits or to pay medical benefits timely shall be subject to penalties and attorney fees unless the employer reasonably controverts the employee’s claim. LeJeune v. Bell Tower Corp., 08-2827 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/7/10), 34 So.3d 464.

Section 23:1201(F) subjects an employer to penalties and attorney fees for failing to timely pay indemnity or medical benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the employee's claim.

Williams v. State Ex Rel. Department of Social Services · filed 2011-10-05(F)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), an employer who fails to commence payment of indemnity benefits or to pay medical benefits timely shall be subject to penalties and attorney fees unless the employer reasonably controverts the employee’s claim.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay owed workers' compensation benefits without a valid reason or evidence reasonably controverting the claim.

Krogh v. Tri-State Refrigeration · filed 2011-11-02

In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase “reasonably controvert” that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits. Thus, to determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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.

Section 23:1201(F) mandates reasonable attorney fees and permits penalties of up to $2,000 for each disputed claim, capped at $8,000, unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim or the nonpayment results from a condition beyond the employer's control; separate penalties may apply to multiple claims.

Henry Marange, Jr. v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. · filed 2011-11-02(F)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F), which is mandatory, provides for reasonable attorney fees and for penalties of up to $2,000.00 for the non-payment of each disputed claim, not to exceed $8,000.00 in penalties, unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim or the non-payment results from a condition over which the employer had no control. ... In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase “reasonably controvert” that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits. Thus, to determine whether the claimant‟s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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.

Section 23:1201 allows penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a claim; the court found no such arbitrary or capricious failure where the available medical information did not establish the requested treatment was necessary.

Krogh v. Tri-State Refrigeration · filed 2011-11-02

The determination of whether an employer should be cast with penalties and attorney fees in a workers’ compensation case is essentially a question of fact and subject to the manifest error/clearly wrong standard of review. ... Given the limited information, none of which pointed to the medical necessity of pain management for Mr. Krogh, we cannot find that Tri-State was arbitrary or capricious in not approving what could have been seen as duplicative medical services, as he was in the process of undergoing the physical therapy recommended by Dr. Odinet at the time of the request.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the employer reasonably controverts the claim or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Rideaux v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. · filed 2011-12-07(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 is the relevant statute in determining whether an employer should be assessed penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay indemnity or medical benefits. The statute provides that no penalties or attorney fees shall be assessed “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). ... After reviewing the testimony and evidence in this matter, we find no manifest error in the WCJ’s finding that Kohl’s did not “reasonably controvert” Rideaux’s claim. Accordingly, the WCJ did not err in awarding penalties and attorney fees to Rideaux.

Section 23:1201 precludes penalties and attorney fees when an employer reasonably controverts a claimant’s right to benefits; reasonable controversion requires a nonfrivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant’s evidence.

Silas v. Sowela Technical College · filed 2012-02-01

[T]o determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer 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.

Section 23:1201(F) caps the daily penalty for a failure to provide benefits at $2,000, even when the $50-per-day calculation would exceed that maximum.

Ewing v. Frederick M. Hilburn, II · filed 2012-03-07(F)

Although Mrs. Ewing is entitled to a penalty of $50.00 per day for each day Dr. Hilburn refused her request to see Dr. Rich, the total $50.00 per day penalty may not exceed $2,000.00. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). Mrs. Ewing requested permission to see Dr. Rich on June 2, 2010, but was not granted permission to see him until August 16, 2010, for a total of seventy-six days. This would equal a penalty of $3,800.00, so the maximum amount which may be awarded to Mrs. Ewing is $2,000.00.

Section 23:1201(F) awards penalties and attorney fees when an employer refuses to authorize eligible medical treatment unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim by showing a valid reason or evidence for the denial.

Sampson v. Avoyelles Parish School Board · filed 2012-03-07(F)

When an employer refuses to authorize medical treatment for an eligible workers’ compensation claimant, the claimant is entitled to penalties and attorney fees unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim. ... A claim is reasonably controverted if the employer establishes that it had “some valid reason or evidence” for denying the claim.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for failing to authorize reasonable medical treatment unless the claim was reasonably controverted, with the daily penalty capped at $2,000.

Ewing v. Hilburn · filed 2012-03-07(F)(2)

Based upon the clear language of the statute, .a penalty and attorney fee can be imposed for this failure to authorize treatment except where the claim is reasonably controverted. ... Accordingly, we find that Dr. Hilburn and Continental Casualty failed to reasonably controvert Mrs. Ewing’s request to see Dr. Rich. ... Although Mrs. Ewing is entitled to a penalty of $50.00 per day for each day Dr. Hilburn refused her request to see Dr. Rich, the total $50.00 per day penalty may not exceed $2,000.00. La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for an employer’s failure to pay compensation or medical benefits unless the employer reasonably controverted the claim or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond its control.

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

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides that a claimant is entitled to an award of penalties and attorney fees for its employer’s failure to pay compensation or medical benefits unless the WCJ finds that the employer reasonably controverted the claim or that nonpayment was the result of conditions not under control of the employer.

Section 23:1201(F)(1) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for an employer's untimely payment of covered workers' compensation benefits, including medical benefits, unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Nitcher v. Northshore Regional Medical Center · filed 2012-05-02(F)(1)

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(F) covered situations in which the employer failed to commence, or recommence, payment of benefits timely, to pay continued installments timely, or to pay medical benefits timely. Under this statutory provision, both penalties and attorney’s fees were recoverable unless the claims were reasonably controverted.

Section 23:1201(F)(4) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees to be awarded and paid directly to a health care provider that prevails on a claim for payment of its fee.

Rebel Distributors Corp. v. Luba Workers' Comp. · filed 2013-03-06(F)(4)

With regard to the recovery of penalties and attorney fees for failure of an employer to pay medical expenses, this concept of the health care provider as the appropriate party to enforce that claim carries forward there as well. Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F)(4) provides “[i]n the event that the health care provider prevails on a claim for payment of his fee, penalties as provided in this Section and reasonable attorney fees based upon actual hours worked may be awarded and paid directly to the health care provider.” (Emphasis added.)

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Brown v. Offshore Energy Service, Inc. · filed 2012-08-16(F)(2)

The failure to provide payment of benefits will result in a penalty and attorney fee “unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.”

Subsection (G) makes an employer liable for penalties and attorney fees when it fails to pay an award payable under a final, nonappealable judgment within thirty days; an interlocutory judgment does not trigger that obligation.

Hill v. New Orleans EMS · filed 2013-04-10(G)

Courts of this state have recognized that under La. R.S. 23:1201(G), an employer is liable for penalties and attorney fees if it does not pay an award payable under a final, nonappealable judgment within thirty days. ... In the instant ease, the October 5, 2011 judgment is an interlocutory judgment, as the issue of Ms. Hill’s disability status was not resolved in that judgment, but only the preliminary matters of the motion to compel and the penalty and attorney fee awards.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Bracey v. City of Alexandria · filed 2013-06-05(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 is the relevant statute in determining whether an employer should be assessed penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay indemnity or medical benefits. The statute provides that no penalties or attorney fees shall be assessed “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).” ... After having reviewed the testimony and evidence, we cannot say that the WCJ committed manifest error in finding that Bracey had proved his entitlement to penalties and attorney fees.

Subsection (F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim.

Holmes v. Nursecare Nursing & Rehabilitation Center · filed 2013-07-24(F)

Since Nurseeare denied Ms. Holmes SEB after terminating her employment due to insubordination with no supporting evidence, this court agrees with the WCJ’s finding that Nurseeare failed to reasonably controvert the claim for SEB for the period of September 1-26, 2009. Therefore, awarding Ms. Holmes penalties in the amount of $2,000.00 and attorney fees in the amount of $2,000.00 are appropriate in this matter. La. R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201 requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to timely pay benefits without reasonably controverting the claim, and subsection (F) sets the penalty amounts and caps.

Anderson v. Kroger 747 · filed 2013-12-11(F)

Workers’ compensation penalties are assessed pursuant to the authority given in La.R.S. 23:1201. Unless the employer reasonably controverts the employee’s claim, he is subject to being assessed with penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay indemnity and medical payments. ... This argument comports with the wording of the statute, and we find that the WCJ erred as a matter of law in denying penalties. Section 1201(F) fixes the amount of penalty that can be awarded. Failure to pay results in a penalty of up to the greater of twelve percent of unpaid benefits or fifty dollars per calendar day for each day benefits remain unpaid. In no event can the fifty-dollar-per-day penalty exceed $2,000.00, and the maximum amount of penalties that can be awarded is $8,000.00.

Under § 23:1201(I), penalties and attorney fees are not warranted when the employer can articulate an objective reason for terminating benefits at the time of termination.

Dupont v. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. · filed 2014-03-05(I)

In determining whether a defendant’s actions are arbitrary and capricious under La.R.S. 23:1201(I), “the crucial inquiry is whether the employer can articulate an objective reason for terminating benefits at the time of the termination.” ... It appears that the employer had an objective reason for terminating benefits at the time of the termination, although we disagree with that reason. Therefore, we find no error in the WCJ’s failure to award penalties and attorney’s fees.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when the employer lacks factual or medical information to reasonably controvert the claimant’s entitlement to benefits.

Perrilloux v. Uniforms by Kajan, Inc. · filed 2013-12-27(F), (I)

Here, the trial court found Kajan failed to reasonably controvert Mrs. Perrilloux’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. Our review of Mr. Cassanova’s testimony supports the trial court’s conclusion. Mr. Cassanova did not possess the factual and/or medical information to counter Mrs. Perrilloux’s claims. Therefore, we do not find the trial court erred in assessing Ka-jan with the penalties and attorney’s fees provided for in La. R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to consent to an employee’s requested treating-physician selection or change when consent is required.

O'Quinn v. Trinidad Drilling, LP · filed 2014-10-01(F)

According to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), an employer or insurer may be assessed with penalties and attorney fees for failure to consent to an employee's request to select a treating physician or change physicians when such consent is required by La. R.S. 23:1121. ... Under LSA-R.S. 23:1201, we assess a penalty of $2,000.

Under La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1201(F), a claimant must prove that medical expenses were not appropriately paid to obtain penalties and attorney fees; subsections (G) and (I) likewise require evidentiary support for nonpayment or an unreasonable refusal to provide benefits.

Dietz v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. · filed 2014-11-05(F), (G), (I)

Despite the opposing views of La.R.S. 23:1201.3, Mr. Dietz’s claim fails for evidentiary reasons as the record does not demonstrate the extent to which the consent judgment was satisfied, or not, with regard to interest. Accordingly, we find no error in the denial of benefits pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... This court has previously explained that a claimant has the burden of establishing that medical bills were not appropriately paid so as to invoke the penalty provision of La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... As explained above, however, the record in this case reveals rigorous debate regarding the need for, scope of, and type of psychological or psychiatric care. ... This determination supports a finding that penalties were inappropriate under La.R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees for an employer's or insurer's failure to pay or reasonably controvert benefits, but the court held that such relief could not be awarded where the claimant neither alleged nor prayed for it and the issue was not litigated.

McCombs v. G.L. Jones Construction, Inc. · filed 2015-01-14(F)

Further, Claimant failed to make the allegations necessary to recover penalties and attorney fees for Defendants’ failure to provide medical treatment and failed to pray for those special damages to be awarded. Without the allegations having been made, Defendants were unable to assert affirmative defenses, present evidence or be notified that the penalty claim was at issue. The issue was never litigated and it was improper to award penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and 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.

Groover v. Lafitte's Boudoir, Inc. · filed 2015-03-18(F)

Penalties and attorney’s fees will 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 a review of the entire record, this Court finds the decision to assess penalties and attorney fees against the appellants to be correct and reasonable.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay or authorize treatment unless the claim is reasonably controverted, and for discontinuing benefits arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause.

Montou v. Boise Cascade Company · filed 2015-04-01(E), (F), (I)

The Workers’ Compensation Act allows penalties and attorney fees to be awarded when an employer fails to approve of medical treatment and when an employer improperly discontinues indemnity benefits. These occasions are governed by two different standards enumerated in La.R.S. 23:1201(E) and La.R.S. 23:1201(I). ... Therefore, failure to timely pay benefits or authorize treatment shall result in penalties and attorney fees unless the employer or insurer can reasonably controvert the claim. ... Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(I) provides the standard by which an employer’s conduct is evaluated when benefits have been discontinued. ... Thus, considering that penal statutes are to be strictly construed and giving deference to the factual findings of the WCJ, we will not disturb the judge’s findings that Boise relied on competent medical advice and, thus, had probable cause to terminate Mr. Montou’s benefits. ... The court did not err in denying penalties and attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:1201(I).

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer unreasonably fails to pay compensation benefits, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the failure resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Ruebush v. Office of Risk Management · filed 2015-04-08(F)

This provision provides for the payment of penalties and attorney fees for failure to provide payment for compensation benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the failure to provide such benefits results from conditions over which the employer had no control. ... After review, we maintain the workers’ compensation judge’s award under La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... We do not conclude that the workers’ compensation judge was manifestly erroneous in finding that the employer was unreasonable in its failure to further consider and investigate the ongoing complaints.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for untimely workers’ compensation payments, but bars them when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment is due to circumstances beyond the employer’s control.

Shailow v. Gulf Coast Social Services · filed 2015-06-10(F)

Penalties are assessed under La.R.S. 23:1201(F) for an employer’s failure to pay benefits as they become due. However, as the claim for medical benefits here was prescribed, no such benefits were due. Nonetheless, we find no manifest error in the WCJ’s award of penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay indemnity benefits.

Section 23:1201(G) applies to a claim for penalties based on nonpayment of treatment required by a final, nonappealable judgment, but the claimant must allege a judicial determination that the treatment was owed.

Sinegal v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office · filed 2014-05-07(G)

In the absence of any judicial determination that Defendant failed to pay any reasonable and necessary medical treatment resulting from the injuries Sinegal sustained in her April 26, 2006, and December 12, 2007 workplace accidents, we conclude that Sinegal has failed to state a cause of action for her entitlement to penalties and attorney fees for violation of the consent judgment.

Subsection (F) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees for failing to timely commence or continue benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Downs v. Chateau Living Center · filed 2015-01-28(F)

For the same reasons, we find that the trial court erred in assessing penalties and attorney’s fees against Chateau. La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for the assessment of a penalty and reasonable attorney fees against the employer or insurer for the failure to timely commence or timely continue paying benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.

Subsection (G) provides penalties and attorney fees for an unpaid award after a final, nonappealable judgment, while subsection (F) penalizes failures to pay compensation or medical benefits or to consent to a physician change; these penalties do not apply to claimed injuries not causally linked to the work accident.

Brown v. AM Logging & Alternative Service Concepts, LLC · filed 2015-06-18(G), (F)

Mr. Brown’s new disputed claim for compensation filed nearly a year later cannot revisit this claim. We find that Mr. Brown’s claim for penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(G) is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. See La. R.S. 13:4231. Mr. Brown’s first assignment of error is without merit. ... Mr. Brown alleged the appellees are in violation of La. R.S. 23:1201(F) for not authorizing treatment for both his thoracic and cervical injuries. ... As stated above, the OWC found the cervical pain and injuries of which Mr. Brown complains were not causally linked to the work-related accident, and therefore fall outside the scope of La. R.S. 23:1201(F). Mr. Brown’s fourth assignment of error is without merit.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control; a reasonable controversion requires some valid reason or evidence supporting the denial.

Marshall v. Town of Winnsboro · filed 2015-11-25(F)(2)

Failure to provide payment of benefits will result in a penalty and attorney fees “unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” La. R.S. 23:1201 F(2); McCarroll v. Airport Shuttle Inc., 2000-1123 (La.11/28/00) 773 So.2d 694; J.P. Morgan Chase v. Louis, 44,309 (La.App.2d Cir.05/13/09), 12 So.3d 440. The phrase “reasonably controvert” means that the defendant must have “some valid reason or evidence on which to base his denial of benefits.” Brown v. Tex-LA Cartage, Inc., 1998-1063 (La.12/01/98), 721 So.2d 885.