La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1201

Section 23:1201(F) requires a penalty and reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim when an employer or insurer fails to provide required indemnity or medical benefits or fails to consent to a required treating-physician selection or change.

Conner v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2015-12-09(F)

Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201(F), the failure to provide payment of indemnity or medical benefits in accordance with LSA-R.S. 23:1201 or the failure to consent to the employee’s request to select a treating physician or change physicians when such consent is required shall result in the assessment of a penalty “together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim.” ... Based on the foregoing, we find no merit in the defendants’ argument that Ms. Conner is only entitled to attorney fees for work performed by her counsel in obtaining penalties on the mileage reimbursement issue.

Subsection (F) requires a penalty and reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim when an employer or insurer fails to pay required indemnity or medical benefits, or refuses a required treating-physician choice; the statutory attorney-fee award covers the attorney's services in the litigation, not only work on issues for which penalties were awarded.

Conner v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Co. · filed 2015-12-09(F)

Pursuant .to LSA--R.S. 23:1201(F), the failure to provide payment of. indemnity or: medical benefits in accordance with LSA-R.S. 23:1201 or the: failure to consent to the employee’s request to select a treating physician or. change physicians when such consent is required shall result in the assessment of a penalty “together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim.” Although the primary consideration in the impost*766tion of attorney’s fees is not to compensate the employee, but rather to discourage certain offensive behaviors on the part of the employer- or insurer, the amount so awarded is intended to fully compensate the employee’s attorney, thereby benefitting the employee, for the attorney’s services rendered in connection with the litigation. Langley v. Petro Star Corp. of La., 2001-0198 (La.6/29/01), 792 So.2d 721, 726-727. Factors to be considered when fixing the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded include the degree of skill and ability exercised by the attorney, the amount of the claim, the amount recovered by the employee, and the amount of time the attorney devoted to the [c]ase. Davis v. Farm Fresh Food Supplier, 2003-1381 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/14/04), 879 So.2d 215, 221. On review, the amount of attorney’s fees awarded by the workers’ compensation judge will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Langley, 792 So.2d at 727.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to provide required medical benefits, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Prince v. Superior Energy Services, L.L.C. · filed 2015-12-16(F), (F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 governs the award of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases. The failure to authorize necessary medical treatment is considered a failure to furnish medical benefits, as required by La.R.S. 23:1203, and will subject the employer to penalties and attorney, fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F).7 However, penalties and attorney fees “shall not |napply if 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).

Subsection (E) requires penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay medical benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer or insurer's control.

Namias v. Sunbelt Innovative Plastics, LLC · filed 2016-02-24(E)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 establishes that penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay benefits shall be assessed unless the claim is reasonably controverted' or such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer unreasonably fails to pay owed workers’ compensation benefits, including by failing to authorize an eligible employee’s medical procedure.

Verges v. AmTrust North America Community Leaders Advocacy for Success · filed 2016-08-31

To determine whether a - 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 an employer or its 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 it refused to pay all or part of the benefits owed. Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 886, 890. An employer’s failure to authorize a medical procedure for an employee otherwise eligible to receive workers’ compensation is deemed to be the failure to furnish benefits, thus triggering the penalty provisions of La. R.S. 23:1201. Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 2002-1631 (La.2/25/03), 840 So.2d 1181.

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

Neece v. Louisiana Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Assoc. · filed 2016-10-26(F)

Failure to pay benefits in a timely manner requires the imposition of penalties and attorney fees on the employer or insurer, unless that party reasonably controverts the employee’s claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). The question is, therefore, not whether the employer acted arbitrarily and capriciously, but whether the employer presented “sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the evidence provided by the claimant,” Mouton v. Walgreen Co., 07-1403, p. 14 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/08), 981 So.2d 75, 85 (citing Humphrey v. Icee Distribs., 06-549 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/29/06), 944 So.2d 783, writ denied, 07-7 (La. 3/9/07), 949 So.2d 442). “The employer must adequately investigate the claim, and the crucial inquiry is whether the employer had an articulable and objective reason for denying or discontinuing benefits at the time it took that action.” Rivera v. M & R Cable Contractors, Inc., 04-985, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/15/04), 896 So.2d 90, 97 (quoting Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 9 (La. 6/29/99), 737 So.2d 41, 46). An award or denial of penalties and attorney fees is reviewed for manifest error. Mouton, 981 So.2d 75.

Under § 23:1201(F), a claimant must prove entitlement to statutory penalties, while an employer avoids penalties and attorney fees by providing factual and medical evidence that reasonably controverts the claim and having an articulable and objective reason to deny benefits.

Evrin S. Ford v. Bechtel Og&c Construction Services, Inc. · filed 2016-12-07(F)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), a claimant in a workers’ compensation claim has the burden of proving his entitlement to statutory penalties for the employer’s refusal or failure to timely pay workers’ compensation benefits. To avoid the imposition of penalties and attorney fees, the employer and its insurer must provide factual and medical evidence to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim. Bolton v. Mike Fleming Construction, 36,521 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/11/02), 833 So.2d 1177. The employer must have an “articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took the action.” Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La. 2/25/03), 840 So.2d 1181, 1188.

Section 23:1201(F) allows penalties and attorney fees for untimely benefits, but § 23:1201(F)(2) bars them when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Abshire v. Town of Gueydan · filed 2016-12-07(F), (F)(2)

In the event the employer fails to timely provide the benefits as required, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for the assessment of penalties and a reasonable attorney fee. However, penalties and attorney fees may not be awarded “if 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).

Section 23:1201(F) provides for workers’ compensation attorney fees and penalties, but they are unavailable when the claim is reasonably controverted.

Frazier v. Covenant Services Worldwide · filed 2017-05-31(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides the basis for an award of attorney fees and penalties in a workers’ compensation matter. This provision, however, is inapplicable if the claim is reasonably controverted.

Under § 23:1201(F)(2), an employer may avoid penalties for disputed medical benefits by reasonably controverting the claim based on the facts known when it acted.

Harper v. Boise Paper Holdings, LLC · filed 2017-12-06(F)(2)

An award of penalties and attorney fees depends on the facts known to the employer at the time of its action. Workers‟ compensation law provides that an employer may reasonably controvert a disputed claim for medical benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

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

Melody P. Smith v. Circle K Stores, Inc. and Ace American Ins. Co. · filed 2018-06-06(F)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), a claimant in a workers’ compensation claim has the burden of proving his entitlement to statutory penalties for the employer’s refusal or failure to timely pay workers’ compensation benefits. To avoid the imposition of penalties and attorney fees, the employer and its insurer must provide factual and medical evidence to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim. Bolton v. Mike Fleming Construction, 36,521 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/11/02), 833 So.2d 1177. The employer must have an “articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took the action.” Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631[, p. 11] (La. 2/25/03), 840 So.2d 1181, 1188.

Subsections (F) and (F)(2) permit penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to timely pay indemnity or medical benefits without reasonably controverting the claim; subsection (J) limits multiple violations in one merits hearing to one reasonable attorney-fee award.

Shelton v. Smitty's Supply, Inc. · filed 2018-06-12(F), (F)(2), and (J)

In this case, the WCJ erred in making two separate awards of attorney fees for Smitty's failure to timely pay indemnity benefits and the failure to pay medical benefits. Under La. R.S. 23:1201(J), only one award of attorney fees can be made in connection with a hearing on the merits, even when multiple violations have occurred.

Subsection (F) supports workers’ compensation penalties and attorney-fee awards, including an additional fee for defending the award on appeal.

Turner v. Chi. Bridge & Iron Co. · filed 2018-06-27(F)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), the WCJ awarded Turner $14,500 in attorney fees and $6,000 as a penalty assessed against Chicago. Turner requests that the penalty be increased to the maximum of $8,000 and the award of attorney fees be increased to over $50,000. We find no manifest error in the $14,500 attorney fee award or the $6,000 penalty. However, we increase the attorney fee award by $3,000 as compensation for the cost of defending against Chicago's appeal.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to consent to an employee’s selection or change of treating physician when consent is required under § 23:1121.

Kyle v. Boise Cascade Company · filed 2018-07-05(F)

Furthermore, pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), penalties and attorney‟s fees may be imposed “for failure to consent to the employee‟s request to select a treating physician or change physicians when such consent is required by [La.]R.S. 23:1121.” Youngblood v. Covenant Sec. SVC, LLC, 11-2382, p. 12 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/21/12), 112 So.3d 233, 241, writ denied, 13-0200 (La. 3/8/13), 109 So.3d 363.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for an employer's violation of the employee's right to choose a treating physician under La. R.S. 23:1121(B)(1), and the issue may be decided in an expedited summary proceeding.

Scott v. Packaging Corp. of Am. · filed 2018-07-05(F)

An award of attorney fees under LSA-R.S. 23:1201 F [sic] is allowed for a violation of LSA-R.S. 23:1121 B(1). The purpose of such an award is to discourage indifference or undesirable conduct by employers.

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

McCallon v. Key Energy Servs., LLC · filed 2019-04-24(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) governs the assessment of penalties and award of attorney fees for an employer's failure to pay benefits. This provision does not apply if the employer reasonably controverts the claim or if nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), we award Mr. McCallon $ 4,000 in penalties representing $ 2,000 for past indemnity benefits and $ 2,000 for past medical benefits. Additionally, we award him $ 12,000 in attorney fees for work performed before the WCJ and this court.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties when the employer reasonably controverts the claim, while Section 23:1201(I) authorizes a penalty for arbitrary and capricious discontinuance of claim payments.

Burnett v. Vill. of Estherwood · filed 2019-05-01(F)(2) and (I)

We find that the WCJ did not err in this case in finding that Estherwood reasonably controverted the claim ( La.R.S. 23:1201(F) ) of Mr. Burnett and was not arbitrary and capricious in denying the claim ( La.R.S. 23:1201(I) ).

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney fees for an employer's failure to pay benefits or authorize medical treatment unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control; subsection (G) imposes penalties and attorney fees when an award under a final, non-appealable judgment remains unpaid for thirty days, subject to the employer's lack of control.

Daniels v. State Through Department of Transportation and Development · filed 2019-07-17(F)(2), (G)

An employer's failure to provide payment of benefits or authorize medical treatment will result in an imposition of 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."

Subsection (G) adds a penalty and reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid for 30 days, unless the nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Walter v. PCP International, Inc., and Amtrust North America · filed 2019-09-25(G)

We further find that, upon signing the Agreement, PCP acquiesced to the August Judgment, which thereby precluded appeal in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 2085, and in effect made the judgment final. ... Therefore, we conclude the Agreement, entered into and signed by the parties on September 28, 2008, constituted a final, nonappealable judgment for purposes of La. R.S. 23:1201(G). Accordingly, the award payable to Walter became due at that time, and he is entitled to have the penalties and attorney fees provided for in La. R.S. 23:1201(G) added to that award, unless PCP’s failure to pay within 30 days from September 28 resulted from conditions over which it had no control.

Section 23:1201(F) penalty attorney fees are not limited by La. R.S. 23:1141 and do not require approval by a workers’ compensation judge.

In Re: George A. Flournoy · filed 2020-04-03(F)

Respondent collected attorney’s fees totaling $4,000. This sum represented penalty attorney’s fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), which are not limited by the restrictions of La. R.S. 23:1141 and for which approval by a workers’ compensation judge is not required. Moreover, respondent’s client agreed to the fee. Therefore, the attorney’s fee collected by respondent is not unreasonable.

Under subsection (G), penalties and attorney fees are not warranted merely because a workers’ compensation settlement check contains a conditional endorsement, particularly where the employee’s attorney did not seek permission to remove the condition.

Zinn v. Zagis, USA, LLC · filed 2020-04-22(G)

In light of the developing nature of the jurisprudence regarding conditional endorsements to settlement checks in workers’ compensation cases, we find no such circumstances in the present matter. We find that a serious legal question has been presented by this appeal: are penalties and attorney fees warranted as a matter of law for including a conditional endorsement on a workers’ compensation check? Although we have ruled that they are not warranted as a matter of law, we find that advocating that position is not frivolous in light of the jurisprudence surrounding this issue.

Section 23:1201(F)(1) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for an employer's failure to pay compensation or medical benefits or timely authorize medical treatment, unless the claim was reasonably controverted; the assessment is based on fault.

Boudreaux v. Take 5, LLC · filed 2022-10-05(F)(1)

Penalties are authorized by La.R.S. 23:1201(F) for an employer’s failure to pay compensation benefits and medical benefits and to timely authorize medical treatment. Penalties and attorney fees provided for by this section are to be assessed based on fault; however, these provisions do not apply if the employer and/or its insurer reasonably controverts the claim for benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(1)-(2).

Section 23:1201 provides the basis for seeking workers’ compensation penalties and attorney fees for a suspension of benefits, but the court upheld denying attorney fees and costs where the claimant failed to attend the IME.

Mary Brown Versus Walmart, Inc. · filed 2023-05-05

In the instant case, it is not disputed that Ms. Brown failed to attend the IME. Accordingly, we also find no error in the trial court’s decision not to award attorney fees and costs to counsel for Ms Brown under La. R.S. 23:1201, and deny relief on this issue.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for an employer or insurer's failure to pay workers' compensation benefits when there is no articulable and objective reason for denying them.

Mitchell Loewen Versus The New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC and Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, LLC · filed 2023-06-07(F)

In his disputed claims for compensation, Mr. Loewen sought penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F). The purpose of imposition of penalties and attorney's fees is to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers. ... The crucial inquiry in determining whether to impose penalties and attorney's fees on an employer is whether the employer had an articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took action. ... The determination of whether an employer or insurer should be cast with penalties and attorney's fees in a workers' compensation action is a factual question, which will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of manifest error. ... Considering the entire record, along with our decision to uphold the workers’ compensation court’s denial of Mr. Loewen’s claims for SEBs, we find no manifest error in the denial of his claim for penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for unpaid compensation or medical benefits unless the employer or insurer reasonably controverted the claim; a reasonable controversion requires a nonfrivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information reasonably countering the claimant’s evidence.

Jenson v. Berry Global Group, Inc. · filed 2023-08-09(F)

The award of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases is essentially penal in nature and is intended to deter indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers toward injured employees. ... Penal provisions are strictly construed. ... The WCJ’s grant or denial of penalties and attorney fees under the workers’ compensation statute is subject to manifest error review. ... The WCJ has great discretion in awarding or denying penalties and attorney fees. ... The provisions of La. R.S. 23:1201(F) permit for multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits. ... To find that the employer or insurer reasonably controverted a claim, the WCJ must find that the payer engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed. ... Applying the manifest error standard of review, we find no error in the award of penalties and attorney fees by the WCJ; and this assignment of error is without merit.

Section 23:1201 does not support penalties and attorney fees when the employer reasonably investigates the claim and assesses liability rather than acting arbitrarily or capriciously.

Troy D. Magee (Deceased)/wallace Magee and Ciara Caston Filey v. City of New Orleans Fire Department · filed 2025-05-06

In this case, an award of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201 is not warranted. The NOFD’s position was not the result of arbitrary or capricious conduct but rather a reasonable attempt to investigate Captain Magee’s cause of death and assess liability. Therefore, we reverse the OWC’s award of penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(E) is construed strictly as punitive and applies only to insurers and employers, so it does not encompass LIGA, an association.

Pitre v. AL JOHNSON CONST. CO. · filed 1994-12-20(E)

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 dictates that LIGA is an entity not intended to be included within the meaning of the statutes.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment of benefits, but § 23:1201(F)(2) exempts an employer when nonpayment results from conditions beyond its control.

Brumley v. Med Express Ambulance Service · filed 1996-06-05(F), (F)(2)

La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for the assessment of penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay benefits payable under La.R.S. 23:1221(4)(p). However, La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) provides that an employer shall not be assessed penalties or attorney fees where the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer has no control.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim, meaning it lacks sufficient factual and medical information to counter the claimant’s information.

Moore v. Popeye's Fried Chicken · filed 1997-06-20(F)(2)

An employer or insurer who denies workers' compensation benefits is subject to penalties and attorney fees.[10] Those penalties and fees may not be assessed if the claim is reasonably controverted.[11] The test of whether the employee's claim has been reasonably controverted turns on whether the employer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant.[12] If the employer fails to investigate the employee's claim, it subjects itself to penalties and attorney fees.[13] ... Defendant clearly did not have sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by plaintiff, and we find no error in the hearing officer's award of penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201 penalties are penal and therefore strictly and narrowly construed; penalties or attorney fees are unavailable when the employer has a rational basis for refusing workers’ compensation benefits.

Callihan v. Gulf Coast Marines, Inc. · filed 1998-05-15

An award of penalties pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201 is penal in nature; therefore, a strict and narrow interpretation is applied. ... Penalties or attorney fees are not justified when there is a rational basis for the refusal of payment of workers' compensation benefits.

Section 23:1201(F) permits only one penalty and one attorney-fee award for a claim, assessed against the employer, the insurer, or both according to their respective fault, subject to the statutory penalty cap.

Bergeron v. Watkins · filed 1999-03-02(F)(1), (F)(4)

By imposing separate penalty and attorney fee awards against Mr. Watkins and against LWCC, the workers' compensation judge violated the "one penalty only" and "one attorney fee only" limitations of La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(4). Further, as the greater penalty in this case was $50.00 per calendar day, by imposing penalties totaling $3,900.00, the workers' compensation judge violated the $2,000.00 maximum penalty allowed by the first sentence of La. R.S. 23:1201(F). ... Thus, under the facts of this case, we interpret La.R.S. 23:1201(F) to allow for the imposition of a single penalty of $2,000.00 and a single attorney fee award of $7,500.00 upon Mr. Watkins and LWCC. In accordance with Subsection (F)(1)'s requirement that the penalty and attorney fees be assessed "depending upon fault," we apportion the award between the parties in accordance with their respective degrees of fault, which we determine to be 50% to Mr. Watkins and 50% to LWCC.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer fails to provide workers' compensation payments, as applied here to an arbitrary and capricious failure to reinstate indemnity benefits.

Gross v. Maison Blanche, Inc. · filed 1999-04-21(F)

An employer's refusal to authorize medical treatment, which is reasonable and necessary, warrants an award of attorney's fees and penalties. ... Accordingly, the hearing officer did not err in finding that Maison Blanche was arbitrary and capricious in failing to reinstate indemnity benefits for May 7, 1997 thru March 23, 1998. The hearing officer awarded Ms. Gross $7,500, in attorney's fees and statutory penalties.

Section 23:1201 allows penalties and reasonable attorney fees for untimely payment of medical or indemnity benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted, and the provision is strictly construed.

Briscoe v. Thero-Kinetics, Inc. · filed 1999-05-05

A claimant is entitled to recover penalties and reasonable attorney fees in instances where an employer fails to timely pay medical or indemnity benefits, unless the claim is reasonably controverted. ... The attorney fee and penalty provisions, however, are penal in nature and must be strictly construed, allowing recovery only in cases where the facts negate probable cause of nonpayment.

Section 23:1201's penalty provisions for denied medical benefits are governed by the version in effect when benefits were denied, and an employer avoids penalties only by reasonably controverting the claim with a valid reason or supporting evidence.

Skipper v. Acadian Oaks Hosp. · filed 2000-05-03(F), (F)(2)

We have considered the supreme court's indication in Resweber, 660 So.2d 7, that the jurisprudential rule at issue should have a limited application to cases involving the entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, as well as our decision in Harrington, 685 So.2d 457, and the decisions of the first and second circuits in McCoy, 734 So.2d 886, and Gay, 754 So.2d 1101, respectively, and conclude that the law in effect at the time of the denial of medical benefits governs an employee's claim for penalties under La.R.S. 23:1201. ... 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.

Section 23:1201(G) authorizes only a workers’ compensation judge, rather than a district court, to award the penalties and attorney’s fees provided there.

Sonnier v. Town of Vinton · filed 1999-12-22(G)

However, we find the trial court erred in assessing penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G). The workers’ compensation act grants authority only to the workers’ compensation judge to award such relief. We therefore remand the question of attorneys fees and penalties to the workers’ compensation judge for hearing and disposition.

Section 23:1201(F) provides penalties and attorney fees for unpaid compensation and medical benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Ziegler v. Bagby Construction/LWCC · filed 2000-04-25(F)

LA R.S. 23:1201(F) grants a claimant the statutory right to penalties and attorney fees for all unpaid compensation and medical benefits.[18] The section does not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted. The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is whether, given the facts, medical and otherwise, known to the employer or his insurer, did the employer or insurer have a reasonable basis to believe that medical expenses and compensation benefits were not due the employee. Stated another way, did the employer or his insurer have sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant.[19] We find that Bagby did not have sufficient factual information to reasonably counter the claim.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to timely pay benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted by factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant's evidence.

Durham v. Plum Creek Mfg. · filed 2000-05-10(F)

A claimant is entitled to recover penalties and attorney fees in instances where the employer fails to timely pay medical or indemnity benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted. La. R.S. 23:1201. A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer or insurer produces factual or medical information of such a nature that it reasonably counters the claimant's evidence. Taylor v. Columbian Chemicals, supra. A WCJ has great discretion in awarding or denying penalties and attorney fees and his or her discretion will not be disturbed absent manifest error. Odom v. International Paper Co., 31,826 (La.App.2d Cir.5/5/99), 736 So.2d 290.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees to be awarded directly to a health care provider who prevails on a fee claim, with liability assigned to the employer or carrier according to fault.

Thomas v. Roy D. Lowery Logging, Inc. · filed 2000-05-10(F)(4), (F)(1)

The statute provides that in the event a health care provider prevails on a claim for payment of his fee, penalties and attorney fees may be awarded and paid directly to the health care provider. R.S. 23:1201 F(4). On this record, the statutory penalty of $2,000 is warranted. ... The penalty and attorney fees shall be assessed either against the employer or against the compensation carrier, depending upon fault. R.S. 23:1201 F(l). There is no record evidence that the employer, Roy D. Lowery Logging Inc., was responsible for the failure to pay Dr. Knight. Rather, this was the decision of the carrier, Silver Oak Casualty, and its adjuster, Ms. Rachal. Penalties and attorney fees are therefore assessed against Silver Oak only.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney's fees when compensation or medical benefits are not paid timely, unless the claim is reasonably controverted; a refusal to authorize medical treatment is not reasonably controverted without competent contrary medical evidence.

Shields v. GNB Technologies, Inc. · filed 2000-10-04(F)

An employer or insurer who fails to commence payment of compensation benefits timely, to pay continued compensation benefits installments timely, or to pay medical benefits timely may be subject to penalties not to exceed $2000 and attorney's fees, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer and insurer have no control. ... In summary, both penalties and attorney's fees are now recoverable under Section 1201 F if the employer or insurer fails to commence payments of benefits timely or to pay continued installments timely (or to pay medical benefits timely) unless the claim is reasonably controverted. ... Taking the record as a whole, GNB's refusal to authorize the orthopedic referral was not reasonably controverted by competent medical evidence. ... The WCJ was not manifestly erroneous in the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to make payments as required by the statute.

Bordelon v. Inland Indus. Contractors · filed 2001-01-31

We find no error with the workers' compensation judge's factual determination that Inland reasonably controverted Mr. Bordelon's claim and correctly denied penalties. Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201, penalties and attorney fees may be awarded when an employer fails to make payments in accordance with the statute.

Subsection (G) bases postjudgment attorney-fee awards on the attorney's effort to enforce the final judgment, while the judgment's amount remains relevant.

Tatum v. St. Patrick's Psychiatric Hosp. · filed 2001-08-22(G)

Under La. R.S. 23:1201(G), we consider only the attorney's effort in seeking to enforce the final judgment, not efforts leading up to that judgment as those costs are covered by section F of the statute. Nevertheless, we consider the amount of the judgment relevant for the determination.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits an employer to reasonably controvert a disputed medical-benefits claim, while § 23:1201(F)(1) assigns penalties and attorney fees to the employer or insurer according to fault.

Baullion v. Old American Pottery Co. · filed 2001-11-21(F)(2), (F)(1)

An award of penalties and attorney fees depends on the facts known to the employer at the time of its action.

Section 23:1201(E) provides no basis for penalties or attorney fees when the employer has paid the correct indemnity rate.

Todd v. Security Industrial Ins. · filed 2000-05-15E

This court has determined that Security did not miscalculate Ms. Todd's compensation rate, and in fact has paid her an appropriate indemnity rate since shortly after the accident. There is no "nonpayment" on which to base this award under R.S. 23:1201 E. Thus the award of penalties and attorney fees must be reversed.

Section 23:1201(I) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees for discontinuing compensation payments arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause; a reasonable basis for contesting benefits defeats the claim.

Thompson v. City of New Orleans · filed 2006-05-24(I)

Although the workers' compensation judge found in favor of Mr. Thompson on the issue of his entitlement to supplemental earnings benefits, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the judge's denial of attorneys' fees and penalties on the basis that the City had a reasonable basis for contesting Mr. Thompson's claim for benefits.

Section 23:1201(I) allows penalties up to $8,000 and attorney fees for an arbitrary and capricious reduction of benefits; the amount awarded is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

EVERGREEN PRESBYTERIAN MINIST. 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. George v. M & G Testing and Services, Inc., 95-31 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/19/95), 663 So.2d 79, writ denied, 96-0039 (La.3/8/96), 669 So.2d 403. 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 allows penalties and attorney fees for late payment of benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim or the nonpayment was beyond its control.

Lenox v. Central Louisiana Spokes, LLC D/B/A Renegade · filed 2022-09-21

“The unambiguous language of La.R.S. 23:1201 clearly establishes that penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay benefits shall be assessed unless the claim is reasonably controverted or such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” ... While Spokes’ efforts at trial and on appeal did not succeed, it did not engage in a frivolous legal dispute. Spokes presented factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time it refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed, including the pendency of this appeal.

For penalties under § 23:1201(F), the version in effect when the act or omission giving rise to the penalty occurred governs; after a post-cap penalty award, later penalty awards are subject to the statutory cap.

Landry v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. · filed 2015-06-03(F)

The law that governs an award of penalties in workers’ compensation cases is the law as written when the act or omission that gave rise to those penalties takes place. Because Mr. Landry had been awarded a penalty in 2007, after the penalty cap was enacted, all future penalty awards became subject to the law then in effect.

Former § 23:1201(F) imposed penalties and attorney fees for unpaid workers' compensation benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Williams v. Plumbing · filed 2004-09-22(F)

Under these facts, we find no abuse of discretion by the WCJ in the refusal to award penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties for untimely compensation payments, permits multiple penalties for multiple violations, and uses the greater of the percentage or daily amount; subsection (B) sets the payment deadline.

Young v. Gulf Coast Carpets · filed 2004-11-17(F), (B)

In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478, p.6 (La. 1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14, 19, rehearing granted on other grounds, 02-442, 02-478 (La. 4/21/03), 851 So.2d 917, the supreme court reiterated the well-known precept that “[a]wards of penalties in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature, being imposed to discourage indifference and the undesirable conduct of employers and insurers.” ... The supreme court then agreed with this court’s decision that La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits claims. ... We have determined that Young’s correct indemnity benefit is $326.53. In this case the greater of the penalties is obviously the fifty-dollar-a-day penalty. Young was injured on February 4, 1998, and the first payment was made on February 13, 1998. Although the payment was made within the fourteen days that Gulf Coast Carpets had knowledge of his injury, the payment made on March 18, 1998, to correct the wrong amount originally paid was late. La.R.S. 23:1201(B). Therefore, the correcting payment was thirty-three days late, resulting in a penalty of $1,650.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits penalties and attorney fees for failure to pay benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Sigler v. Rand · filed 2004-12-29(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F)(2) provides for the payment of penalties and attorney fees for the failure to provide payment of benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the failure to pay results from conditions over which the employer had no control. ... While Dresser Rand clearly violated its obligation under La.R.S. 23:1201 by failing to immediately pay all outstanding medical expenses after the claim was no longer reasonably controverted, we find no error in the WCJ's decision to "ferret out" the penalties by concluding that Dresser Rand's violation was a single, ongoing one resulting in only one penalty award under the circumstances of this case. Thus, we affirm the single penalty award in the amount of $2,000.00 for Dresser Rand's failure to immediately catch up on the payment of all outstanding medical expenses.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees for unpaid workers’ compensation or medical benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted, with multiple penalties measured by each claim or demand for particular benefits rather than each missed week.

Player v. International Paper Co. · filed 2005-01-28(F)

To reasonably controvert a claim, the employer must have sufficient factual or medical information to reasonably counter the evidence provided by claimant. ... Although the Fontenot case allows the imposition of multiple penalties for multiple violations of workers' compensation benefits, we do not believe that it allows penalties for each and every week of missed benefits, as indicated by the WCJ. Instead, Fontenot allows penalties for each claim or "demand for particular benefits."

Section 23:1201(F) provides the specified statutory penalty for covered failures involving workers’ compensation payments, but it does not authorize a separate ten-percent assessment for violating § 23:1201.1.

Robbins v. Isle of Capri Casino · filed 2005-06-15(F)

There are examples in which a penalty is delineated and may be assessed for failure to follow a specific statute. Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides for an employer’s failure to provide payment in accordance with the statute or if the employer fails to consent to the employee’s request to select a treating physician or change physicians. The penalty assessment is “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.” ... Here, the award of ten percent of benefits paid to claimant is in essence a penalty; therefore, it must be construed narrowly and specifically provided for. ... There is no language in the Workers’ Compensation Act that allows for the imposition of a ten percent assessment for a failure to adhere to La.R.S.1201.1. We find the penalty is not authorized and, therefore, we must reverse.

Subsection (E) requires workers’ compensation benefits to be paid within sixty days after written notice, while subsection (F) permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Carter v. Lakeview Regional Medical Center · filed 2005-09-23(E), (F)

Benefits due a workers’ compensation claimant must be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives written notice thereof. La. R.S. 23:1201(E). Penalties and attorney fees may be awarded for failure to provide such payment timely, 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). As the court found that there were no benefits due Carter, and we have affirmed this finding, we find no error in the court’s failure to award penalties and attorney fees.

For an injury occurring before the 2003 amendment, the version of § 23:1201(F) in effect at the time of injury controls, so the amendment's res judicata clause cannot be applied.

Maschek v. Cartemps USA · filed 2005-02-16(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201 was amended by Acts 2003, No. 1204, Section 1. Prior to that time, section F did not contain the foregoing highlighted language pertaining to res judicata. It is clear that the law in effect at the time of the injury is controlling. ... As such, because the accident in this case occurred on 12 March 1999, prior to the amendment, we may not apply the clause pertaining to res judicata.

Section 23:1201(F), as applied by the majority, did not authorize a penalty for the insurer’s failure to timely provide vocational rehabilitation services under the law in effect when the violation occurred.

Williams v. A-Jax Lumber Co. · filed 2006-05-10(F)

Regarding the legal question of whether Williams was properly awarded a $2,000.00 penalty for the insurer's failure to timely provide rehabilitation services, we note that the law governing penalty awards is that which was in effect at the time the alleged statutory violation occurred. See Maynard v. Grey Wolf Drilling, 04-431 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/20/04), 885 So.2d 1277. In this case, Williams filed a claim for services in May of 2003. The applicable law at the time precluded an assessment of penalties for the failure to provide rehabilitation. Chelette v. Riverwood Int'l USA, Inc., 03-1483 (La.10/17/03), 858 So.2d 412. Accordingly, the $2,000.00 penalty awarded to Williams must be reversed.

Section 23:1201 requires timely payment of wage and medical benefits and authorizes penalties and attorney fees when payment or required consent is withheld, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the delay was beyond the employer’s control, while limiting a merits hearing to one attorney-fee award.

Cormier v. State of La., Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries · filed 2007-11-21(A), (B), (E), (F), (F)(2), (I), and (J)

To reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim so as to avoid the 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. ... The employer must have an “articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took the action.” ... According to La.R.S. 23:1201(J), only one reasonable attorney fee may be awarded for all violations emanating from any hearing on the merits on any disputed claim for compensation.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and attorney fees for unpaid compensation unless the employer reasonably controverted the claim or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond its control.

Ford v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD · filed 2011-08-10(F)(2)

Raeford, which blamed delays on a change in third party administrators, has not shown that the claim for payment of indemnity benefits during the period in question was reasonably controverted or that nonpayment resulted from conditions over which it had no control. Accordingly, we assess a penalty of $2,000 for this violation. Ford is entitled to attorney fees for this violation. The amount of attorney fees will be addressed after other alleged violations of La. R.S. 23:1201 are reviewed on this appeal.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) subjects an employer to a penalty and attorney fee for underpaid medical expenses unless the claim was reasonably controverted or resulted from conditions over which the employer had no control.

Lake Charles Memorial Hospital (Gregory Leday) v. Al Copeland Investments, Inc. · filed 2010-12-08(F)(2), (F)(4)

This underpayment of medical expenses subjects Copeland to the imposition of a penalty and attorney fee unless the claim was reasonably controverted or resulted from conditions over which the employer had no control.

Section 23:1201 authorizes penalties for untimely or nonpayment of benefits, permits up to $8,000 for an arbitrary and capricious discontinuation of benefits, and limits attorney fees under the statute to one reasonable fee.

Angie Brown v. Shop Rite, Inc. · filed 2011-11-02(F), (I), (J)

Accordingly, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for an up to $2,000.00 penalty for each claim of non-payment or untimely payment of benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim or shows that the violation was beyond its control. Non-payments and untimely payments subject to this penalty can include the failure to consent to a physician of choice and the failure to consent to a change of physician. Total penalties recoverable in this section are capped at $8,000.00. ... Under La.R.S. 23:1201(I), on the other hand, if the employer arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues benefits, the employer can be penalized up to $8,000.00 for the discontinuation. There is no $2,000.00 maximum on a single infraction. ... 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) requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to timely pay compensation or medical benefits under the fourteen-day and sixty-day deadlines in subsections (B) and (E) without a reasonable basis supported by sufficient factual and medical information.

Simon v. Communications Corp. of America · filed 2013-03-20(F), (B), (E)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) requires that the defendant either provide the medical treatment or have a reasonable basis for not providing the treatment. Without a reasonable basis for denying medical treatment, the employer will owe penalties of $50.00 per day up to $2,000.000 or 12% of all amounts due, whichever is greater. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). A workers’ compensation claim is “reasonably controverted” by an employer, for purposes of avoiding a claim for penalties and attorney fees, if the employer has sufficient factual and medical information to counter that presented by the claimant. ... Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), it is the “[f]ailure to provide payment in accordance with this Section [La.R.S. 23:1201]” that “shall result in the assessment of a penalty.” Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(B), the first installment of “all compensation then due” is due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the injury. Additionally, pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(E), “[m]edical benefits payable” must be paid within sixty days after the employer receives written notice.

Section 23:1201F permits penalties and attorney fees for unpaid workers’ compensation benefits, but subsection (F)(2) exempts an employer or insurer when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond its control.

Young v. City of Gonzales · filed 2015-03-12(F)(2)

Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201F, an employer or insurer may be assessed with penalties and attorney fees for the “failure to provide payment in accordance with [LSA-R.S. 28:1201].”3 Under the applicable statutory provisions of Subsection 1201F, penalties and attorney fees are recoverable unless “the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” LSA-R.S. 23:1201F(2). A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter evidence presented by the claimant. Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 890; Pitre, 102 So.3d at 823. ... Based on the factual and medical information the City possessed, the City had an articulable and objective reason to deny benefits until Ms. Young’s employability could be determined.4 Accordingly, we conclude that the OWC erred in imposing penalties and attorney fees against the City pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201F, and we reverse that portion of the judgment.

Section 23:1201(1) permits penalties and attorney fees for arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported discontinuation of due claims, while § 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for failure to provide required compensation or medical benefits, including an authorized FCE.

Turner v. Lexington House · filed 2015-04-15(1), (F)

Lexington has not pointed to an objective reason for terminating the benefits at the time of the termination, which is the crucial inquiry: Williams; 24 So.3d 970. Whether an employer is arbitrary and capricious is a finding of fact reviewed under the manifest error standard of review; and the actual amount of the penalty award is not to be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Id. We find no manifest error.or abuse of discretion in the OWC’s determinations regarding the $4,000.00 penalty for termination of indemnity benefits. ... The remaining four penalties were awarded for failure to authorize certain *1085benefits pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... As to the second assertion, the jurisprudence indicates that penalties may be awarded for failure to authorize an FCE. ... Accordingly, we affirm the OWC’s penalty award on this issue.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to timely pay benefits without reasonably controverting the claim, while Subsection (I) authorizes penalties and fees for arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinuing benefits.

New Line Environmental & Canal HR v. Davis · filed 2016-10-07(F), (I)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), an employer or insurer may be assessed with penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay weekly indemnity or medical benefits where the employer or insurer has failed to reasonably controvert the claim. A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual and/or medical information to counter evidence presented by the employee. ... Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation. The crucial inquiry is whether the employer has an articulated and objective reason for discontinuing benefits at the time it took that action. ... Furthermore, although the record clearly indicates the employers’ termination of Mr. Davis’s benefits was based on his alleged violation of La. R.S. 23:1208, we further find that the inconclusive medical report of Dr. Nutik could not justify the employers’ action of terminating Mr. Davis’s benefits. Accordingly, we find no manifest error in the workers’ compensation judge’s assessment of penalties and attorney fees against the employers in this matter.

Section 23:1201(F) subjects an employer to penalties and attorney fees for failing to furnish required medical benefits, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment was beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Bartley v. Schlumberger Technology Co. · filed 2016-12-07(F), (F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 governs the award of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases. The failure to authorize necessary medical treatment is considered a failure to furnish medical benefits, as required by La.R.S. 23:1203, and will subject the employer to penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). However, penalties and attorney fees “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.” La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... Thus, we find no manifest error in the WCJ’s determination that based upon the evidence, Sehlumberger did not reasonably controvert Mr. Bartley’s claim when it failed “to investigate, to assemble, and to assess factual information before [discontinuing] benefits.” Id.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for failure to provide required medical benefits unless the nonpayment was reasonably controverted or resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Prince v. Superior Energy Services, LLC · filed 2015-12-16(F), (F)(2)

We find the denials of Mr. Prince’s medical treatment to be squarely within the control of Liberty Mutual.

Section 23:1201(F) places the burden on a workers' compensation claimant to prove entitlement to penalties and requires the employer to show a factual and medical basis that reasonably controverts the claim to avoid penalties and attorney fees.

Smith v. Circle K Stores, Inc. · filed 2018-06-06(F)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), a claimant in a workers' compensation claim has the burden of proving his entitlement to statutory penalties for the employer's refusal or failure to timely pay workers' compensation benefits. To avoid the imposition of penalties and attorney fees, the employer and its insurer must provide factual and medical evidence to reasonably controvert a workers' compensation claim. ... The employer must have an "articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took the action." ... Based on the record before us, we find the WCJ did not commit manifest error in finding that the defendants were not arbitrary and capricious in the handling of Ms. Smith's treatment of her right knee. The defendants properly responded to and approved the one and only request made by Dr. Blanda on the required 1010 Form to conduct an MRI on Ms. Smith's right knee. Thus, the defendants successfully "reasonably controverted" Ms. Smith's claim based on both the medical and factual evidence submitted into the record at the hearing.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for unpaid workers’ compensation benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim by having sufficient factual or medical information to provide an articulable and objective reason for withholding payment.

Ceasar v. Flexforce Employment Professionals,inc.& Zurich American Insurance Company · filed 2024-03-20(F)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides that a claimant is entitled to an award of penalties and attorney fees for an employer’s failure to pay compensation or medical benefits unless the employer has reasonably controverted the claim.

Section 23:1201 requires penalties and attorney fees for certain late workers’ compensation payments, but excuses delays beyond the employer’s control and permits no penalty when the claim was reasonably controverted.

Leblanc v. Walmart Distribution Center · filed 2024-09-04(E)(1), (F), (G)

Subsection G applies to the actions of the employer after a final judgment/settlement. ... On de novo review of the record and considering the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1201(F), we find that when Walmart denied the mileage reimbursement requests, at a time when no judgment had yet been signed, it relied on medical evidence to dispute the WCJ’s finding that the neck and back injuries were related to the work accident. ... Although we would later reject Walmart’s argument and even though it may now be liable for the mileage reimbursement requests, we find that no penalties and attorney fees are due because the record supports that Walmart has reasonably controverted this claim. ... As provided in La.R.S. 23:1201(G), any award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment not paid within thirty days after it becomes due subjects the employer to a penalty not to exceed $3,000.00 and reasonable attorney fees if the nonpayment resulted from conditions over which it had control.

Subsection (F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees when benefits are unpaid, unless the claim was reasonably controverted under (F)(2); subsection (I) permits penalties and fees for an arbitrary, capricious, or baseless discontinuance of benefits.

Reissland v. Valluzzo Companies, LLC · filed 2025-12-29(F), (F)(2), and (I)

Based on the facts of this case, we find Valluzzo’s decision to terminate Ms. Reissland’s benefits—in the face of a lack of access to her medical records regarding treatment related to the alleged accident and injury forming the basis of her claim—did not rise to the level of arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. Accordingly, we disagree with Ms. Reissland that she is entitled to attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(I). ... For the reasons discussed in the section of this Opinion reversing the WCJ’s finding that Ms. Reissland was a part-time employee, we also find that Valluzzo failed to reasonably controvert Ms. Reissland’s claim that Valluzzo should have calculated her benefits based on her being a full-time employee. Valluzzo also did not present evidence regarding any extenuating circumstances over which it had no control so as to excuse its decision to calculate Ms. Reissland’s benefits based on her being a part-time employee as opposed to a full-time one. Instead, based on the record, Valluzzo merely gathered incomplete information in determining Ms. Reissland’s benefits by failing to ascertain whether Ms. Reissland had knowingly accepted employment that customarily provided for less than forty hours per week. Therefore, we remand this matter for the WCJ to determine and assess “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 . . ., together with reasonable attorney fees,” noting that “the fifty dollars per calendar day penalty shall not exceed a maximum of two thousand dollars in the aggregate.” La. R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) requires reasonable attorney fees when an employer fails to provide benefits required by the workers' compensation statutes.

Jeffcoat v. McCann's Seafood · filed 1997-05-07(F)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) states that failure to provide benefits presented in the workers' compensation statutes will result in the assessment of reasonable attorney fees. ... This violation constitutes a failure to provide benefits in accordance with the workers' compensation statutes. Since the hearing officer's determinations concerning the dispute were proper in this case, her decision to award attorney fees was not manifestly erroneous. ... Reasonable attorney fees are awarded when an employer does not furnish benefits under the workers' compensation statutes. La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

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

Taylor v. Columbian Chemicals · filed 1999-10-27(E), (F), and (F)(2)

Medical benefits for work-related injuries must be paid within 60 days after the employer or insurer receives written notice thereof. La. R.S. 23:1201 E. Failure to provide payment within this time subjects the employer to a penalty not to exceed $2,000, and reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim. R.S. 23:1201 F; Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885. However, penalties and attorney fees are not assessed if the claim is reasonably controverted or if nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. R.S. 23:1201 F(2); Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, supra; Nowlin v. Breck Const. Co., 30,622 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/98), 715 So.2d 112. A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer or insurer produces factual or medical information of such a nature that it reasonably counters the claimant's evidence. Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, supra; Nowlin v. Breck Const. Co., supra.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees for nonpayment of workers’ compensation benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control; failure to authorize an otherwise covered medical procedure counts as failure to furnish benefits.

Sims v. Sun Chemical Corp. · filed 2001-08-22(F)(2), (F)

However, this court has previously and consistently held that an employer's failure to authorize a medical procedure for an employee otherwise eligible to receive workers' compensation is deemed to be the failure to furnish compensation benefits. See, Gay v. Georgia Pacific Corporation, 32,653 (La.App.2d Cir.12/22/99), 754 So.2d 1101; Roach v. Eagle Water, Inc., 31,912 (La.App.2d Cir.05/05/99), 737 So.2d 182; Fisher v. Lincoln Timber Co., 31,430 (La. App.2d Cir.01/24/99), 730 So.2d 973; Ward v. Phoenix Operating Co., 31,656 (La. App.2d Cir.02/24/99), 729 So.2d 109. Failure to furnish benefits is permissible only when the claim has been "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). Awards for penalties and attorney fees are governed by La. R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer untimely pays compensation or medical benefits, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond their control.

Martin v. Davison Transport, Inc. · filed 2001-09-28

An employer or insurer who fails to commence payment of compensation benefits timely, to pay continued compensation benefit installments timely or to pay medical benefits timely may be subject to penalties not to exceed $2,000 and attorney fees, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer and insurer have no control. La.R.S. 23:1201; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.06/29/99), 737 So.2d 41; Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98), 721 So.2d 885; Shields, supra.

Section 23:1201(F) permits a workers’ compensation judge to award a health care provider the statutory penalty and a separate reasonable attorney fee; the penalty is subject to the reasonably-controverted limitation in Paragraph (F)(2), but the attorney fee under Paragraph (F)(4) is not.

Central Louisiana Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc. v. Rapides Parish School Board · filed 2010-11-03(F), (F)(2), (F)(4)

The initial paragraph of La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that the mandatory penalty available to a claimant is comprised of two parts: (1) a percentage of the unpaid compensation subject to a maximum amount, and (2) a reasonable attorney fee. With regard to a health care provider’s claim, an award of anything but the amount owed is subject to the WCJ’s discretion, although that discretion is limited to some extent by the “reasonably controverted” requirement of La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). Additionally, while La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(4) refers to the award of “penalties,” we interpret that to mean only the statutory penalty provided for in La.R.S. 23:1201(F). That is to say, the WCJ is vested with discretion to impose the twelve percent penalty as provided for by the statute and/or a separate “reasonable attorney fee based upon actual hours worked.” La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(4).

Subsection (G) imposes penalties when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days and concerns lump-sum payments, while subsection (I) permits up to an $8,000 penalty for an arbitrary and capricious discontinuance of benefits.

Williamson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2012-06-06(G), (I)

A workers’ compensation settlement agreement is a final and non-appealable judgment such that the employer’s failure to pay the judgment amount within thirty days following approval and entry into judgment warrants the imposition of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... We agree with the WCJ that the $48,974.00 to purchase the annuity was not paid within thirty days after the settlement was approved as required by La.R.S. 23:1201(G). Therefore, the WCJ was correct in awarding penalty damages on this amount. ... Under La.R.S. 23:1201(I) an employer can be penalized up to $8,000.00 if it arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues benefits. ... Section (G) of [La.R.S. 23:1201] refers to the timely payment of lump sum benefits, not to the continued payment of presently owed benefits. ... We agree with Mr. Williamson that this was a termination of benefits as opposed to a failure to pay pursuant to a settlement agreement. ... Therefore, we find that Mr. Williamson is entitled to the maximum penalty benefit under La.R.S. 23:1201(I) in the amount of $8,000.00 as we find that such discontinuance was arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause.

Subsection (F) requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to pay medical benefits without reasonably controverting the claim, while subsection (E) permits multiple penalties for multiple violations of the sixty-day payment rule.

Romero v. Garan's, Inc. · filed 2013-12-26(F), (E)

The failure to authorize necessary medical treatment is considered a failure to furnish medical benefits, as required by La.R.S. 23:1203, and will subject the employer to penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... Accordingly, we find that Garan and Liberty Mutual failed to reasonably controvert Dr. Jindia’s request for the radiofrequency facet-nerve ablation prior to denying approval. Based on this finding, we award Ms. Romero $2,000.00 in penalties pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... Although multiple penalties are allowed by statute for multiple violations of La. R.S. 23:1201(E), we find no error in the WCJ’s award of a single penalty.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes a $50-per-day penalty for late payment of indemnity benefits, and the court upheld an additional $150 penalty for a six-day delay.

Timberlake v. Christus Health Central Louisiana · filed 2017-05-24(F)

Accordingly, the WCJ did not err in finding that the benefits were paid late and that Cabrini’s payment of a $150.00 penalty to Rhonda with the | míate benefits was insufficient. For these reasons, the WCJ was also correct in awarding Rhonda an additional penalty' of $150.00 and $500.00 in attorney fees for Cabrini’s failure to timely pay her indemnity benefits for the week of September 30 through October 6,2015.

Section 23:1201(F) is strictly construed as a penal statute addressing past-due amounts payable under a final judgment, and it does not require a prior guarantee of payment for medical procedures.

Hayes v. Louisiana Risk Management · filed 1994-04-06(F)

La.R.S. 23:1201 F is a penal statute and therefore must be strictly construed. Fusilier v. Liberty Rice Mill, Inc., 569 So.2d 1050 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990). Bound by this construction, we must respectfully disagree with the hearing officer's application of subsection 1201 F. First, the statute contains no language regarding a prior guarantee of payment. It's purpose, rather, is to remedy past due delinquencies. See Lytell v. Strickland Transp. Co., Inc., 373 So.2d 138 (La. 1979). Further, the judgment of September 2, 1992 did not order the defendants to issue a prior guarantee; it only ordered them to incur the expenses of the requested procedures. The judgment in effect recognized that the disputed medical procedures were necessary for the treatment of the plaintiff's *593 work-related condition. Defendants then became liable for those expense under La.R.S. 23:1203, i.e., when they were incurred.

Section 23:1201(E) imposes statutory penalties for untimely payment of compensation or medical benefits, but not when the claimant’s entitlement is reasonably controverted and the employer elects not to pay.

Comeaux v. Sam Broussard Trucking · filed 1995-05-31(E)

La.R.S. 23:1201(E) provides for statutory penalties when compensation or medical benefits payable are not timely paid; nevertheless, statutory penalties are not due when a claimant's entitlement to benefits is "reasonably controverted" and the employer elects not to pay.

Subsection (E) imposes penalties when compensation or medical benefits are not timely paid, but penalties are unavailable when the claimant's entitlement is reasonably controverted; the provision is penal and strictly construed.

Cormier v. Resthaven Nursing Home · filed 1996-01-17(E)

La.R.S. 23:1201(E) provides for statutory penalties when compensation or medical benefits payable are not timely paid; nevertheless, statutory penalties are not due when a claimant's entitlement to benefits is "reasonably controverted" and the employer elects not to pay. ... These statutes are penal in nature and are to be strictly construed. ... Considering the defendant's failure to investigate the claim, the defendant failed to reasonably controvert the claimant's entitlement to benefits. ... We, therefore, find that claimant is entitled to penalties of $2,000.00. La.R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201(E) authorizes penalties for the unreasonable nonpayment of medical benefits, and the 1992 amendment applied to an injury occurring after its January 1, 1993 effective date.

Cain v. Aquarius Builders, Inc. · filed 1996-07-30(E)

However, La.R.S. 23:1201(E) was amended by Acts 1992 No. 1003, effective January 1, 1993 to include the unreasonable nonpayment of medical benefits; and this act was, indeed, in effect in August of 1993 when the plaintiff sustained his work-related injury. Accordingly, this argument is without merit.

Section 23:1201's untimely-payment penalty applies without regard to whether the employer's or insurer's failure to pay medical benefits was negligent or intentional, unless the necessity or propriety of the procedure was reasonably controverted.

Berry v. Insurance Co. of North America · filed 1996-10-30(E)

Unlike Section 1201.2 which provides for the payment of the employee's attorney's fees for the employer's arbitrary or capricious failure to pay benefits, the untimely payment penalty of Section 1201 makes no distinction regarding the measure of the defendant's scienter, whether whimsical or deliberate, arbitrary or intentional, with the only defense against the penalty being a reasonably held belief by the defendant controverting the necessity or propriety of the proposed medical procedure.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes a penalty for untimely payment of compensation or medical benefits, but the majority held it does not authorize penalties for delayed rehabilitation.

Rollins v. Glitsch Field Services, Inc. · filed 1998-05-13(F)

The Louisiana Workers' Compensation Law does not provide a remedy for the delay in implementation of rehabilitation other than a determination by a court that an employee is entitled to rehabilitation. La. R.S. 23:1226 does not provide for penalties or attorney's fees. Penalties and attorney's fees are provided for in La.R.S. 23:1201 and 23:1201.2 when compensation or medical benefits payable are not timely paid. They do not apply to claims for delayed rehabilitation. ... La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that the penalty shall be an amount equal to 12% of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits or $50 a day, whichever is greater, for each day in which any and all compensation remains unpaid. The total $50 a day penalty shall not exceed $2,000 in the aggregate.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes a 24% penalty when compensation due under a final, nonappealable judgment is unpaid for more than 30 days, unless the delay results from conditions beyond the employer’s control; avoidable reissuance and mailing delays remain within the employer’s control.

Guarino v. KAISER ALUM. CHEMICAL CORP. · filed 1999-01-26(F)

The statute plainly states that any judgment not paid within 30 days after it becomes due is subject to a twenty-four percent penalty unless non payment is the result of conditions over which the employer had no control. There is no question that the check was paid 5 days after the 30-day period. Strictly construing the statute in this case requires the court to determine, as it did here, whether the employer had control over matters which resulted in the late payment. ... Further, we agree that use of the regular mail was also a choice made by defendants, and considering the clear time restraint stated in the statute, defendant could have utilized overnight mail delivery in order to avoid imposition of the penalty. That it chose not to do so was a matter well within its control.

Section 23:1201 requires compensation to be paid as nearly as possible at the same time and place as the employee’s pre-injury wages, subject to an exception when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment is beyond the employer’s control.

First Baptist Church of Lake Arthur v. Fontenot · filed 1999-02-03(A), (F), (F)(2)

With regard to the monthly rather than weekly payment of benefits, we find that, here too, the workers’ compensation judge erred in refusing penalties on this basis. As quoted above, La.R.S. 23:1201(A) provides that “[p]ayments of compensation under this Chapter shall be paid as near as may be possible, at the same time and place as wages were payable to the employee before the accident[.]” (Emphasis added.) While this statute appears absolute, La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) provides that, in those instances where payment is untimely, the provision “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.”

Section 23:1201(E) imposes a penalty for untimely compensation or medical-benefit payments unless the employee's entitlement was reasonably controverted.

Campbell v. Gootee Const. Co. · filed 2000-01-12(E)

At the time the plaintiff was injured, in June of 1993, R.S. 23:1201(E) provided for a 12% penalty for an employer's failure to timely pay compensation benefits.[2] However, penalties were not to be assessed when the employee's right to the benefits was reasonably controverted by the employer of insurer. Kortz v. Colt Energy Services, Inc., supra. ... The employer relied on the results of the IME conducted by Dr. Applebaum to establish that it had reasonably controverted plaintiff's claims for back surgery. However, there were several doctors who reviewed the diagnostic tests and found that plaintiff had a herniated disc. In addition, the neurosurgeon who had treated plaintiff for years steadfastly continued to recommend surgery. Under these particular circumstances, we do not believe that the employer sufficiently controverted plaintiff's claim by relying on the results of the IME, where the doctor examined the plaintiff only one time. We can see no manifest error in the trial court's decision.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) excuses an employer from penalties for delayed medical benefits only when the nonpayment was caused by conditions beyond its control or the employee's entitlement was reasonably controverted.

Thibodeaux v. Sunland Const. · filed 2001-04-04(F)(2)

An employer may escape liability for its delays in providing medical benefits if: (1) its nonpayment stemmed from conditions over which the employer had no control, or (2) the employer reasonably controverted the employee's right to such compensation or medical benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes statutory penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to timely provide medical benefits, including by failing to authorize a necessary medical procedure.

Brown v. Lafayette Association of Retarded Citizens, Inc. · filed 2012-06-20(F)

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(F) provides for statutory penalties based on an employer‘s failure to pay medical benefits timely. The failure to authorize a necessary medical procedure is considered a failure to furnish medical benefits as required by La.R.S. 23:1203, which subjects the employer to penalties and attorney fees. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). In this instance, we find that there were two violations of La.R.S. 23:1203 by LARC and LWCC. Accordingly, the WCJ‘s award of a penalty based on LARC and LWCC‘s failure to authorize the recommended surgery is affirmed.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment of medical benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted with a valid reason or supporting evidence.

Davis v. Tri-Parish Rehabilitation · filed 2013-04-03(F)

An employer is subjected to penalties and attorney fees if it fails to pay medical benefits timely unless the claim is reasonably controverted. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). “In order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.”

Subsections (E) and (F) do not allow a Medicaid recipient to recover workers’ compensation penalties and attorney’s fees for medical expenses Medicaid paid, because those benefits are no longer payable to the employee.

Brown v. A M Logging · filed 2014-12-23(E), (F)

Thus, the “medical benefits payable” under the LWCA referenced in La. R.S. 23:1201(E) necessary to support an award of penalties and attorney’s fees under Subsection F were extinguished under the LWCA insofar as Brown’s entitlement to assert payment thereof.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits an employer to avoid penalties and attorney fees on a disputed medical-benefits claim only when it has a reasonable basis, including sufficient factual and medical information, to reasonably controvert the claim.

Ardoin v. Calcasieu Parish School Board · filed 2016-02-03(F)(2)

An award of penalties and attorney fees depends on the facts known to the employer at the time of its action. Workers’ compensation law provides that an employer may,reasonably controvert a disputed claim for medical benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). .An “employer must rely-on competent medical advice when the decision to deny medical treatment is made.” ... Because we find that the School Board did not have sufficient medical information to reasonably controvert Claimant’s request for the adjustable bed and failed "to dispose of its' continuing duty to investigate the claim before denying it, we find that the WCJ did not' err in awarding penalties and attorney fees to Claimant.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees for failure to timely pay medical benefits, but the claimant must first establish entitlement to the benefit.

Bailey v. Veolia Environmental Services · filed 2018-01-31(F)

Veolia asserts that an employee must first prove entitlement to a medical benefit before penalties and attorney fees can be awarded for the untimely payment of the alleged medical benefit. We agree.

Section 23:1201(F) provides penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to furnish medical benefits; the daily penalty is capped at $2,000 per claim.

Savoy v. Double Diamond Casino · filed 2002-05-08(F)

It is well settled that under La.R.S. 23:1201, sanctions, in the form of penalties and attorneys fees, are available when an employer or insurer has failed to fulfill its duty to furnish medical benefits.

Section 23:1201(F)(1) requires penalties and attorney fees to be assessed against the employer or insurer according to which party was at fault for the nonpayment.

Parrish v. Van-Tel Communications · filed 2007-10-10(F)(1)

Such penalty and attorney fees shall be assessed against either the employer or the insurer, depending upon fault. ... In this case, the evidence shows that actions of both the employer and the insurer were arbitrary and capricious. Further, the employer has continued to controvert the claim even in the absence of reasonable grounds to do so. Thus, the trial court was within its authority to assess penalties and attorney fees against the employer.

Subsection 23:1201(F) supports penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a claim without an objective reason to deny benefits.

Russell v. House of Raeford Farms · filed 2007-10-24(F)

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 shall not be disturbed absent manifest error. ... The crucial inquiry in making this determination is whether the employer had an objective reason to deny benefits. ... Here, we conclude that House of Raeford Farms did not have an objective reason to deny benefits to Russell and her child, and the penalties and attorney's fees were properly assessed. ... We believe that House of Raeford Farms did not reasonably controvert Russell's claim, and the OWC's conclusion was not manifest error. See La. R.S. 23:1201 F.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney’s fees when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim; a claim is reasonably controverted only when the employer has a valid reason or evidence for denying benefits.

Redmann v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance · filed 2012-02-28

When an employer has failed to pay workers’ compensation benefits, penalties and attorney’s fees may be assessed if the employer did not reasonably | ucontrovert the claim. ... A claim for workers’ compensation benefits is reasonably controverted if the employer has some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits. ... A review of the record shows Martin’s did not present any evidence or argument at trial to show Ms. Redmann’s claim was reasonably controverted. Accordingly, we do not find the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding that Martin’s failed to reasonably controvert Ms. Redmann’s claim for benefits and in assessing penalties and attorney’s fees against Martin’s.

Section 23:1201 allows penalties and attorney fees to be avoided when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim by having a valid reason or evidence, such as a non-frivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant’s information.

McMillan v. City of Monroe · filed 2013-01-16

In order to reasonably controvert a claim and avoid penalties and attorney fees, 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 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., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885.

Section 23:1201 precludes penalties and attorney fees when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim through a nonfrivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant's evidence.

Liggio v. Popeye's Diversified Foods & Seasoning · filed 2013-03-27

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) precludes penalties and attorney fees when an employer reasonably controverts a claim, requiring a valid reason or evidence, such as a nonfrivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information supporting the denial.

Long v. Bengal Transportation · filed 2013-12-11(F)

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) permits attorney fees when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a disputed workers’ compensation claim, even when a penalty is not ultimately imposed.

Sandifer v. Calcasieu Parish Public Works · filed 2017-11-22(F)

“[to] reasonably controvert a claim so as to not be liable for statutory penalties, the employer must have factual and medical information of such a nature that it reasonably counters that provided by the workers’ compensation claimant.” ... After the trial court established Mr. Sandifer’s status and the Parish failed to reasonably controvert the status, the trial court was authorized to award attorney fees. ... Thus, the Parish’s failure to reasonably controvert Mr. Sandifer’s status triggered attorney fees because Mr. Sandifer incurred the unnecessary expense of a trial.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to reasonably controvert an employee’s workers’ compensation claim, including when it relies on an erroneous interpretation of the law.

Lyman L. Smith v. Packaging Corporation of America · filed 2022-11-30(F)

An employer is subject to penalties and attorney fees should it fail to reasonably controvert an employee’s claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(F); ... It is apparent that PCA knowingly chose to test various arguments in the trial court to challenge Mr. Smith’s entitlement to workers’ compensation medical benefits and an award for SEBs. ... Reliance on an erroneous interpretation of a law subjects the employer to penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) makes an employer subject to penalties and attorney fees when it fails to reasonably controvert an employee’s claim.

Bos v. Packaging Corporation of America · filed 2023-02-15(F)

An employer is subject to penalties and attorney fees should it fail to reasonably controvert an employee’s claim.

Section 23:1201(E) imposes penalties when an employer or insurer has not reasonably controverted a compensation claim, including a claim for unpaid medical expenses.

Johnson v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc. · filed 1994-04-12(E)

The assessment of penalties after 1983 is determined by inquiring whether the employer or its insurer has "reasonably controverted" the compensation claims. ... We decline to follow Dubois and in accordance with this court's decision in Hall, we find, as did the trial court, that appellant was entitled to an award of penalties on the unpaid medical expenses.

Subsection 23:1201(B) imposes statutory penalties when an employer or insurer denies workers’ compensation benefits without reasonably controverting the employee’s right to compensation.

Ceasar v. Crispy Cajun Restaurant · filed 1994-10-05(B)

The penalty provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1201 are invoked if workers' compensation is denied and the employer or his insurer did not reasonably controvert the employee's right to compensation. The test to determine whether the employee's right has been reasonably controverted turns on whether the employer or his insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant. ... CRISPY CAJUN offered no evidence to contradict or rebut the existence of CEASAR'S work-related injury, and stipulated to the medical findings. ... Consequently, we award penalties to CEASAR.

Section 23:1201(E) requires penalties when an employee's right to benefits was not reasonably controverted; a claim is reasonably controverted only when the employer had sufficient factual and medical information to decide to terminate benefits.

Harris v. Langston Co., Inc. · filed 1995-04-05(E)

La.R.S. 23:1201(E) requires that whenever an employee's right to benefits has not been reasonably controverted, penalties shall be added. A workers' compensation claim is reasonably controverted if the employer had sufficient factual and medical information upon which to base a decision to terminate benefits. Thibodeaux v. Cajun Restaurant, 93-1090 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/94); 635 So.2d 522 [quoting Bradley v. Justiss Oil Company, Inc., 618 So.2d 646, 651 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993)].

Section 23:1201 et seq. authorizes penalties, interest, and attorney fees when an employer arbitrarily fails to investigate and pay a workers' compensation claim, and the obligation to investigate continues when later medical information suggests ongoing disability.

Cochennic v. Dillard's Dept. Store Warehouse · filed 1996-01-17

An employer who fails to investigate an employee's compensation claim subjects itself to statutory penalties and attorney fees. ... This obligation is continuing in nature. Therefore, if after an initial optimistic report, an insurer receives medical information indicating the possibility of continuing disability, the insurer may not blindly rely upon the earlier report to avoid penalties for arbitrary nonpayment of compensation benefits. ... Under the circumstances of this case, in which there has been neither proven nor postulated an intervening cause for appellee's condition, such as another accident or other medical condition or disease, in the absence of any contact with appellee's treating physician and the lack of any medical opinion that appellee's condition was not accident related, we find no manifest error in the determination by the hearing officer that appellant was arbitrary and capricious and has rendered itself liable to penalties, interest, and attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:1201 et seq.

Section 23:1201 imposes statutory penalties when an employer or insurer withholds compensation or medical benefits without evidence reasonably controverting the employee's entitlement.

Parkes v. Prien Pines Nursery · filed 1998-11-04

La.R.S. 23:1201 provides that the employer or insurer is liable for statutory penalties for withholding benefits without evidence to "reasonably controvert" the employee's right to compensation and medical benefits. ... A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has a reasonable basis for believing that compensation and medical expenses are not due. ... We find that the workers' compensation judge committed manifest error in failing to award penalties and attorney's fees based on the defendant's unjustified and arbitrary denial of compensation and medical benefits.

Section 23:1201(E) permits penalties when an employer or insurer fails to reasonably controvert a claim for benefits.

Wiltz v. Baudin's Sausage Kitchen · filed 2000-06-19(E)

A claimant's entitlement to penalties hinges on whether the employer or its insurer "reasonably controverted" the claim for benefits. ... Although, arguably at best, the employer and its carrier may have had a negligible basis to dispute Tissa's claim for continued temporary total disability benefits, the record convinces us their decision to discontinue paying Tissa any benefits was arbitrary and capricious; and they failed to "reasonably controvert" the positive medical evidence weighing in her favor.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for unpaid compensation or medical benefits when the employer has no objective reason to withhold payment; the reasonable-controversion exception does not apply.

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)(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.

Dugan v. St. Francis Medical Center · filed 2010-04-14(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.”

Section 23:1201(G), rather than subsection (E), governs medical expenses payable under an approved settlement because the award must be paid within thirty days after the final judgment becomes due.

Simons v. Brand Staffing Services, Inc. · filed 2013-02-21(G), (E)

Section 1201(G) is clearly applicable in this case. Appellant’s argument to the contrary that Section 1201(E) should be applied is without merit.

Subsection (I) authorizes a penalty of up to $8,000 and a reasonable attorney fee when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues compensation payments.

Futch v. Horseshoe Casino · filed 2014-07-23(I)

All told, Horseshoe’s conduct falls far short of being arbitrary and capricious, indifferent to the claimant, or lacking in apparent motivation. This portion of the judgment is reversed.

When a health-care provider prevails on a claim for payment of its fee, § 23:1201(F)(4) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees based on actual hours worked, unless the claim was reasonably controverted.

Christus Health Southwest Louisiana D/B/A Christus St. Patrick Hospital v. All About You Home Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2017-12-06(F)(4)

The penalties for failure to make timely payments of medical expenses are set forth in La.R.S. 23:1201(F), which provides, in relevant part: ... Pursuant to this provision, both penalties and attorney fees are recoverable when an employer fails to pay medical benefits timely, unless the claims are reasonably controverted. ... Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(4), the Defendants’ failure to make any effort, much less a reasonable one, to investigate Christus’s claims entitles Christus to the recovery of reasonable penalties as well as attorney fees “based upon actual hours worked[,]” documented in the affidavits submitted by Christus’s counsel at trial.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely indemnity or medical benefits, but bars them when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment was beyond the employer’s control, and does not require separate penalties for each medical payment when an overall penalty has been assessed.

Malvilen Cook v. St. Genevive Health Care Services, Inc. · filed 2019-11-06(F)(2), (I)

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). ... Given the global nature of the WCJ’s award under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), we find no manifest error in the denial of a separate, itemized penalty under La.R.S. 23:1201(I). Neither do we find it appropriate to render a separate penalty for each medical payment denied when the WCJ assessed St. Genevive with a penalty for its overall failure to provide medical expenses, a finding within the WCJ’s discretion.

Subsection (I) permits statutory penalties and attorney fees when an employer discontinues workers’ compensation benefits arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause.

Young v. Cb&i, LLC & Xl Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2021-10-27(I)

A claimant is entitled to an award of statutory penalties and attorney fees if the employer discontinues benefits and “such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause[.]” La.R.S. 23:1201(I).

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control; an erroneous legal interpretation does not reasonably controvert the claim.

Caldwell v. West Fraser (South), Inc. and Trumball Insurance Company · filed 2024-08-21(F)(2)

The penalties for failure to make timely payments of compensation and/or medical expenses are set forth in La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2), which provides, in pertinent part (emphasis added): ... (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. ... The record indicates Defendants knowingly chose to test their arguments relating to prescription and causation in the court below to challenge Mr. Caldwell’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. The WCJ rejected those arguments, and we have affirmed his rulings. “Reliance on an erroneous interpretation of a law subjects the employer to penalties and attorney fees.” Smith, 354 So.3d at 144. ... After reviewing the record and considering the jurisprudence, we cannot find the WCJ manifestly erred in determining that penalties and attorney fees were warranted for Defendants’ denial of Mr. Caldwell’s claim for indemnity benefits.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment was beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control, while subsection (F) sets the applicable penalty amounts and caps.

Cormier v. Swla Center for Health Services · filed 2026-06-03(F)(2), (F)

Unless “reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control[,]” the failure to pay benefits due “shall result in the assessment of” penalties and attorney fees. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). The penalties assessed shall be “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[.]” La.R.S. 23:1201(F). “[H]owever, the fifty dollars per calendar day penalty shall not exceed a maximum of two thousand dollars in the aggregate for any claim(,]” and “[t]he maximum amount of penalties which may be imposed at a hearing on the merits regardless of the number of penalties which might be imposed under this Section is eight thousand dollars.” Jd.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes a penalty and reasonable attorney fees when workers' compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid.

Alford v. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. · filed 1996-11-06(F)

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(F) states in pertinent part: ... Failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section shall result in the assessment of a penalty in an amount equal to twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits or fifty dollars per calendar day, whichever is greater, for each day in which any all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid, together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for untimely or unauthorized workers’ compensation benefits, subject to the reasonable-controversion and beyond-control exceptions in § 23:1201(F)(2).

Thomas v. Town of Arnaudville · filed 1998-04-22(F), (F)(2)

The relevant workers’ compensation statute entitles claimants to penalties and attorney fees if payments are not paid timely ór are not authorized. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). Penalties and attorney fees can be avoided if the claim is reasonably controverted or if the nonpayment results from conditions that were beyond the control of the employer or insurer. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Section 23:1201(G) provides for penalties and attorney's fees when a final, non-appealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due.

Clark v. Town of Basile · filed 1998-10-07(G)

Defendant next contends that the workers' compensation judge erred in awarding penalties and attorney's fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G) which provides for the awarding of penalties and attorney's fees in the event a final, non-appealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due. The judgment of this court dated May 8, 1996, became final on June 8, 1996, and defendant tendered payment on August 10, 1996. Defendant argues that there were several reasons for the delay, i.e. confusion over the amount of payments due under the judgment and settlement negotiations. The question of penalty and attorney fee assessment is essentially one of fact and subject to the manifest error standard of review. McCarty v. State, Office of Risk Management, 94-33 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94); 643 So.2d 886. We find no manifest error in the assessment of penalties and attorney's fees under the facts of this case.

Section 23:1201(G) requires penalties and 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.

Fallen v. City of New Orleans · filed 1999-12-15(G)

Because the judgment of August 6, 1997 was a nullity, it was not a nonappealable final judgment. However, the judgment of October 13,1997 became a nonappealable final judgment after the delays for moving for a new trial and taking an appeal had run with the defendant taking no action. Accordingly when the defendant failed to pay a portion of this judgment, the plaintiff filed a rule for La. R.S. 23:1201(G) penalties which the trial court awarded.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees for unpaid medical benefits, but the sanctions do not apply when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim; the relevant inquiry is whether it had sufficient factual and medical information to counter the claimant's evidence.

Lyons v. Bechtel Corp. · filed 2000-12-27(E), (F)(2)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201, sanctions, in the form of penalties and attorney fees, are available when workers' compensation benefits are not provided as required by law. ... The test for determining whether an employer or insurer has fulfilled its duty to furnish medical benefits is whether the employer or insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the workers' compensation claimant. ... Thus, we must consider whether the Appellees had factual and medical information sufficient to reasonably counter that presented by the Appellant when they refused to provide him with medical treatment. Upon a review of the record, we agree with the WCJ that no award of penalties and attorney fees should be made in this instance.