La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1201

Section 23:1201(I) permits a penalty and reasonable attorney fee when an employer or insurer stops benefit payments without a valid reason or sufficient evidence.

Upchurch v. Randall Well Service · filed 2010-04-14(I)

They have failed to provide a valid reason or present sufficient evidence upon which to base Upchurch’s termination of benefits. Therefore, their actions were arbitrary and capricious. Rather than immediately ceasing payments, Randall and American should have sought permission of the court prior to doing so.

Section 23:1201(I) permits penalties and attorney fees for an arbitrary and capricious discontinuance of benefits; an employer may rely on medical opinions supporting its decision to stop payments.

Iberia Medical Center v. Ward · filed 2010-11-30(I)

Iberia Medical was entitled to rely on these medical opinions. Ms. Ward did not provide contrary medical evidence, nor did she demonstrate that either Drs. Yer-ger or Cenac changed their opinions. Given the undisputed medical evidence that Ms. Ward had reached MMI and could return to work, we cannot say that the termination of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, we reverse the awards of penalties and attorneys’ fees.

Section 23:1201(F) permits an award of attorney’s fees when an employer fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits without reasonably controverting the claim.

Hahn v. X-Cel Air Conditioning, Inc. · filed 2013-01-09(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 ... for each day in which any and all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid ... together with reasonable attorney fees ...” (Emphasis ours.) ... After a thorough review of the record, we cannot say that the workers’ compensation judge was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in awarding Mr. Hahn attorney’s fees.

Section 23:1201(I) authorizes a penalty and attorney fees when an employer arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues workers’ compensation benefits.

Henderson v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. · filed 2013-11-20(I)

Henderson’s inability to work after the accident, which has never been contested, makes Graphic’s discontinuation of wage benefits arbitrary and capricious.

Section 23:1201(I) allows a penalty of up to $8,000 and reasonable attorney fees when an employer discontinues compensation benefits arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause.

Hatchell v. St. Michael Pfu, LLC · filed 2023-03-01(I)

Accordingly, we render judgment in favor of Ms. Hatchell to award her $8,000.00 in penalties pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(1).

Section 23:1201 entitles a workers' compensation claimant to penalties and attorney's fees when benefits are withheld or terminated arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause.

S & S COATING SPECIALTIES v. Dore · filed 2007-12-05

The rule is well settled that a worker's compensation claimant is entitled to penalties and attorney's fees if benefits are withheld or terminated arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause. La. R.S. 23:1201 et seq. In assignment of error # 1, we upheld the WCJ's finding that Dore was not entitled to any further indemnity or medical benefits beyond the emergency room visit and four days of disability. The record indicates that the employer paid the medical bills associated with Dore's initial emergency room visit and for four days of indemnity benefits following the injury. Even though there is evidence of serious employer misconduct,[1] there is no evidence that the employer denied any benefits to Dore arbitrarily, capriciously or without probable cause. As such, this assignment of error also lacks merit.

Section 23:1201 makes a workers' compensation claimant eligible for attorney's fees and penalties when the employer acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause in terminating benefits.

Walker v. Halliburton Services, Inc. · filed 1995-05-15

It is well settled that a workers' compensation claimant is not entitled to attorney's fees and penalties unless the employer acts arbitrarily, capriciously or without probable cause in terminating benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201; 1201.2.

Section 23:1201 permits attorney's fees and penalties when an employer's termination of workers' compensation benefits is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

George v. M & G Testing and Services, Inc. · filed 1995-12-14

It is well settled that a workers' compensation claimant is not entitled to attorney's fees and penalties unless the termination of benefits is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. La. R.S. 23:1201; 1201.2. ... The record clearly substantiates that the defendants were arbitrary and capricious in handling George's claim. Thus, we conclude that the hearing officer was not clearly wrong in awarding George $10,000 in attorney's fees and statutory penalties.

Section 23:1201(F) makes a claimant eligible for penalties and attorney's fees when an employer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause terminates workers' compensation benefits.

Jones v. Universal Fabricators · filed 2000-02-09(F)

A claimant is entitled to penalties and attorney's fees if workers' compensation benefits are terminated arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause by the employer. ... We find that Claimant is entitled to statutory penalties and attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the employer reasonably controverted the claim or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control; reasonable controversion depends on whether the employer had factual or medical information that reasonably countered the claimant's information during the period of nonpayment.

Kepco Operating, Inc. v. Eubanks · filed 2011-03-09(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F)(2) provides for the payment of penalties and attorney fees based on the employer’s 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.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the failure resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control; a reasonable controversion requires a valid reason or evidence supporting denial.

Davenport v. Foster Farms, L.L.C. · filed 2011-07-13(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for the assessment of penalties and attorney fees based on an employer’s 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. In order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base the denial of benefits. ... The evidence shows that the imposition of a penalty and award of attorney fees was justified in this case as Foster Farms failed to reasonably controvert Davenport’s claim. Therefore, the WCJ was not manifestly erroneous in assessing a penalty of $2,000 against Foster Farms and Ohio Casualty, and awarding attorney fees of $7,500 to Davenport.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) does not require penalties and attorney’s fees when a workers’ compensation claim is reasonably controverted.

Robinson v. Calcasieu Parish School Board · filed 2011-11-02(F)(2)

Here, the WCJ chose not to award Ms. Robinson penalties or attorney‟s fees. It denied them because the CPSB terminated Ms. Robinson‟s benefits based upon medical evidence from Dr. Davis, who opined that Ms. Robinson could return to work with no restrictions. Dr. Davis found no evidence of a severe, disabling depressive or anxiety disorder and also noted clear signs of symptom magnification or exaggeration. Given the great discretion given to the WCJ and the solid basis for its determination, we find no error by the WCJ in denying penalties and attorney‟s fees. ... Here, the WCJ found that the CPSB reasonably controverted Ms. Robinson‟s disputed claim for workers‟ compensation under La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). We upheld this discretionary finding in Assignment of Error Robinson Number One above.

Section 23:1201(F) allows penalties and attorney fees unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Pitre v. Buddy's Seafood · filed 2012-08-16(F)

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. 23:1201 F(2). A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter evidence presented by the claimant. ... Based on the evidence presented, we find the OWC was manifestly erroneous in its finding that Buddy’s Seafood had not reasonably controverted Mr. Pitre’s claim for benefits. Buddy’s Seafood’s challenge to Mr. Pitre’s claim was not frivolous and was supported by the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the OWC erred in imposing penalties and attorney fees against Buddy’s Seafood pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201 F, and we reverse that portion of the judgment.

Subsection (F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Carter v. Turner Industries · filed 2013-12-11(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 is the relevant statute in determining whether an employer should be assessed penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay indemnity or medical benefits. The statute provides that no penalties or attorney fees shall be assessed “if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer ... had no control.[”] La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Penalties and attorney fees for failure to provide workers’ compensation benefits do not apply when the employer reasonably controverts the claim, meaning it has a nonfrivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant’s information.

Young v. Supplier Services, LLC · filed 2014-04-02(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F)(2) provides that penalties and attorney fees for failure to provide workers’ compensation benefits do not apply if the employer reasonably controverts the claim. In determining whether an employer meets this burden, “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.” ... Thus, we find that Supplier Services reasonably controverted Mr. Young’s claims and that the WCJ was manifestly erroneous in awarding penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment of workers’ compensation benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Jimmerson v. Johnson Storage & Moving Co. · filed 2014-05-14(F)(2)

The unambiguous language of La. R.S. 23:120110 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. In order to reasonably controvert a claim, a defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base its denial of benefits.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted, meaning the defendant has a valid reason or evidence supporting the denial.

Allen v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. · filed 2017-01-11(F)

Penalties and attorney fees are recoverable under La. R.S. 23:1201(F) if the employer or insurer fails to commence payments of benefits timely or to pay continued installments or medical benefits timely, unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for an employer's refusal to authorize medical treatment unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim by showing some valid reason or evidence for denying it.

Hodges v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles, LLC · filed 2018-03-07(F)

When an employer refuses to authorize medical treatment for an eligible workers' compensation claimant, the claimant is entitled to penalties and attorney fees unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(F) ; Leonards v. Carmichael's Cashway Pharmacy, Inc. , 09-1424 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/10), 38 So.3d 571, writ denied , 10-1738 (La. 10/29/10), 48 So.3d 1094. A claim is reasonably controverted if the employer establishes that it had "some valid reason or evidence" for denying the claim.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the employer reasonably controverts the employee's claim, based on sufficient factual and medical information to counter the claim.

Delatte v. Wash. Parish Sch. Bd. · filed 2018-12-21(F)(2)

An employee is entitled to penalties and attorney fees when the employer fails to provide payment of benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(F). However, the employer shall not be ordered to pay penalties or attorney fees to the employee if the claim has been reasonably controverted. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

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

Boyd v. CCMSI · filed 2018-12-26(F)(2)

Penalties and attorney's fees are awarded pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F). The Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the award of "penalties and attorney fees in workers' compensation cases are essentially penal in nature. The purpose of the imposition of penalties and attorney fees is to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers." Authement v. Shappert Eng'g , 2002-1631, p. 11 (La. 2/25/03), 840 So.2d 1181, 1188. Further, La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) provides that the award of penalties and attorney's 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."

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees for failure to authorize medical treatment when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim.

McCain v. Motel 6 · filed 2020-03-04(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) further provides for the award of penalties and attorney fees for failing to authorize medical treatment by an employer or insurer. However, La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) does not authorize penalties and attorney fees if the claim is reasonably controverted by the employer or insurer. ... In this case, the WCJ specifically found that neither Motel 6 nor Liberty Mutual had “shown sufficient information to reasonably controvert this case that a medical tub is not necessary and can be rented[.]” ... We therefore affirm the WCJ’s award of penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely benefits or unauthorized medical treatment unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim or nonpayment results from conditions beyond its control; reasonable controversion requires sufficient factual and medical information to support the denial.

Woodard v. Brookshire Grocery Company · filed 2022-08-10(F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) governs the assessment of penalties and award of attorney fees for an employer’s failure to pay benefits or authorize medical treatment. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) provides that this provision is inapplicable if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. ... In order to reasonably controvert a claim, a defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base the denial of benefits. ... Reasonably controverting a claim means that an employer has sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter that provided by the claimant. ... The crucial inquiry in determining whether to impose penalties and attorney fees is whether the payor had an articulable and objective reason to deny payment at the time it took action. ... We cannot say the WCJ erred in determining that defendant lacked an articulable and objective reason for denying benefits to Eddrina in light of the facts of this case and applicable law.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for an employer or insurer's failure to pay workers' compensation benefits, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond its control.

Matthews v. Big Easy Janitorial, L.L.C., and Louisiana Construction and Industry Self Insurers Fund · filed 2022-08-10(F), (F)(2)

La. R.S. §23:1201(F) authorizes the imposition of penalties and attorney’s fees against an employer or insurer who fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits. However, if employers and insurers have reasonably controverted the claim or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control, penalties and attorney fees will not be assessed against the employer or insurer. La. R.S. §23:1201(F)(2).

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

Prevost v. City of New Orleans Fire Department · filed 2024-10-01(F), (F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) “authorizes the imposition of penalties and attorney’s fees against an employer or insurer who fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits.” Matthews, 2022-0164, p. 18, 346 So.3d at 336. “However, if employers and insurers have reasonably controverted the claim or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control, penalties and attorney fees will not be assessed against the employer or insurer.” Matthews, 2022-0164, p. 18, 346 So.3d at 336-37 (citing La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2)).

Section 23:1201(F)(4) does not support penalties and attorney's fees when the employer reasonably controverts the claim and its refusal to pay is supported by a serious good-faith defense.

Savoy v. Cecil Perry Imp. Co. · filed 1997-04-07(F)(4)

An employer or insurer will only be responsible for penalties and attorney's fees if it fails to reasonably controvert a workers' compensation claim, and if its failure to pay benefits is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. La.R.S. 23:1201, 1201.2. ... We find that the hearing officer committed manifest error in awarding OLOL penalties and attorney's fees as a result of Perry's refusal to pay Savoy's medical expenses after he was transferred out of the emergency room. ... Since it was entitled to the presumption of intoxication, and a genuine dispute as to the legislative intent of the meaning of "stabilized and ready for discharge from the acute care facility" was at issue, its refusal to pay was reasonable. La.R.S. 23:1081(13). Where there is a serious defense presented in good faith, it is inappropriate to assess statutory penalties and attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney's fees when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim, meaning it has a nonfrivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information reasonably countering the claimant's evidence.

Woodrum v. Olive Garden Restaurant · filed 1999-05-19(F)(2)

To determine whether a claim has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding imposition of penalties and attorney's fees, a court must ascertain whether the employer or 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 the employer/insurer 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, 889. ... We find the workers' compensation judge was clearly wrong in assessing penalties and attorney's fees. Defendants had "some valid reason or evidence" upon which to base the denial of inpatient treatment at a pain clinic.

Section 23:1201(F) requires attorney-fee awards to be reasonable, with reasonableness assessed by factors including the skill and work involved, the amount claimed and recovered, and the time devoted to the case.

Harvey v. BE & K CONST. · filed 2000-10-04(F)

However, in Ward, supra, we stated that the provisions of La. R.S. 23:1201(F) permit only the imposition of a reasonable attorney fee. We also stated that the factors to be considered in imposition of attorney fees in workers' compensation cases include the degree of skill and work involved in the case, the amount of the claim, the amount recovered, and the amount of time devoted to the case.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) supports penalties and attorney fees when an employer has not reasonably controverted the employee’s compensation claim.

Harris v. National Gypsum Co. · filed 2001-08-24F(2)

In this case, as in Miller Sand, National Gypsum never challenged the fact that Mr. Harris twisted his knee on June 6, 1999, nor that this accident caused the internal injuries to the joint that were demonstrated on the MRI. Although Dr. Juneau’s initial report of June 29th stated that Mr. Harris was unable to work until he had surgery, all of the subsequent reports indicated that with ongoing conservative treatment he could continue working if his activities were limited. Thus, the evidence clearly established that while Mr. Harris was previously able to work without restrictions, this on-the-job accident prevented his return to his usual occupation. Nevertheless, National Gypsum neither paid compensation for this ongoing loss of earning capacity nor provided work within the restrictions, insisting instead that any disability resulted from a “heart condition.” Based upon this review, the determination that penalties and attorney fees were warranted is not manifestly erroneous. Moreover, we cannot say that the amounts awarded are an abuse of discretion.

An employer or insurer that arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues workers' compensation payments may owe a penalty of up to $8,000 and reasonable attorney fees for collecting the claims.

Brien v. Leon Angel Constructors, Inc. · filed 2008-03-12(I)

The WCJ did not abuse his discretion in deciding to assess a penalty and award attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(I) permits a penalty and reasonable attorney fee when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues compensation payments.

Key v. Monroe City School Board · filed 2010-03-10(I)

Any employer or insurer who at any time discontinues payment of compensation claims due, when such discontinuance is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause,” is subject to a penalty not to exceed $8,000 and reasonable attorney fee.

Section 23:1201(1) 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 workers’ compensation payments.

Silverman v. Weatherford International, Inc. · filed 2011-10-19(1)

We therefore find Weatherford’s discontinuance of wage benefits arbitrary.

Section 23:1201(1) requires attorney fees and penalties when an employer terminates benefits arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause, but bars attorney fees when the employer did not act arbitrarily and capriciously.

Sider-Jeffery v. Jefferson Parish Public School System · filed 2012-12-11(1)

However, having made that ruling, we further find that the OWC judge committed legal error in imposing attorney fees on the School Board.1 Under La. R.S. 23:1201(1), when an employer terminates benefits, and such termination is deemed arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, attorney fees and penalties shall be awarded to the claimant. Where the employer has not acted arbitrarily and capriciously, attorney fees may not be awarded. Ocon v. Regency Motors of Metairie, L.L.C., 06-834 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/11/07), 957 So.2d 816. We thus set aside the award of attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(G) mandates adding penalties and attorney fees when a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within 30 days after it becomes due, unless the nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Funderburk v. Nabors Drilling, USA · filed 2008-04-02(G)

We disagree. The statute clearly states that if a final judgment is not paid within 30 days after it comes due, penalties and attorney’s fees shall be added. This language is mandatory and does not allow for the court’s discretion in determining whether it is due.

Subsection G imposes a penalty when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is paid more than thirty days after it becomes due and requires reasonable attorney fees.

Laird v. Highpoint Southwest Services · filed 2010-09-22(G)

It is undisputed that the payment of penalties and attorney’s fees occurred on 21 April 2009, five days after the thirty-day deadline provided by La. R.S. 23:1201 G. ... Thus, we reverse the trial court on this issue and award Mr. Laird the amount of $2,400.00 for the late payment. Because La. R.S. 23:1201 G requires Hightower to pay reasonable attorney’s fees, we must remand this matter to the OWC for the purpose of determining same for this one item.

Section 23:1201(G) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, non-appealable judgment remains unpaid for more than thirty days, unless the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Broussard v. Asco Venture Holdings · filed 2017-10-04(G)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(G) provides for penalties and attorney fees as follows: ... If any award payable under the terms of a final, non-appealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such award an amount equal to twenty-four percent thereof or one hundred dollars per day together with reasonable attorney fees, for each calendar day after thirty days it remains unpaid, whichever is greater, which shall be paid at the same time as, and in addition to, such award, unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. ... We can find nothing in the record which indicates the workers‟ compensation judge below abused his great discretion in awarding penalties and attorney fees. The 2009 judgment was a final, nonappealable judgment, and the Defendants clearly did not pay it as ordered. The Defendants‟ failure to fully pay the award within thirty days after it became due did not result from conditions over which they had no control. ... The workers‟ compensation judge did not err in awarding claimant penalties and attorney fees as provided by La.R.S. 23:1201(G).

Subsection (G) makes an employer liable for penalties and attorney fees when it fails to pay an award under a final, nonappealable judgment within thirty days after the award becomes due.

Harrington v. COASTAL CONST. & ENGINEER. · filed 1996-12-11(G)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201(G) an employer is liable for penalties and attorney fees if it does not pay an award payable under a final, nonappealable judgment within thirty days.

Section 23:1201(G) does not warrant penalties on these facts where the physical therapy bill was submitted late and the expenses were paid within sixty days of submission.

Wiley v. Logging · filed 1998-03-06(G)

Like the workers' compensation judge, we conclude that the record now before us indicates that the physical therapy bill was not submitted to the employer until January 1997. The record further indicates that, within sixty days of this submission, the physical therapy expenses were paid, despite having not been previously approved by the employer. Accordingly, we find no error in this aspect of the judge's denial of penalties. Neither do we find error in the refusal to award penalties for the failure to pay Dr. Rambach's expenses in light of our above finding on these expenses.

Section 23:1201 requires penalties and attorney fees for untimely workers' compensation benefit payments unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc. · filed 1998-12-01(B), (F)

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. ... 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(G) authorizes a penalty when an award payable under a judgment remains unpaid for more than thirty days, calculated as the greater of twenty-four percent or $100 per day, with the daily penalty capped at $3,000, unless nonpayment was beyond the employer’s control.

Lummus v. Shoney's · filed 1999-06-01(G)

The last question is what sanctions are authorized by the legislature for arbitrary and capricious failure to pay amounts ordered by a final judgment. Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201 G, if any award payable under the terms of a judgment is not paid within thirty days of its due date, a penalty: ... The statute also provides that the one-hundred dollar per day penalty shall not exceed three-thousand dollars.

Section 23:1201(B) makes the first compensation installment due fourteen days after the employer knows of the injury, and subsection (F) provides penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment.

Cloud v. Ringgold Nurse Care Center · filed 2001-06-20(B), (F)

The first installment of compensation payable for temporary total disability, permanent total disability, or death shall become due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the injury or death, on which date all such compensation then due shall be paid.

Subsection (G) imposes a 24-percent or $100-per-day penalty, together with reasonable attorney fees, when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid more than thirty days after it becomes due, unless the statutory exception applies.

Hunter v. MAXIMUM GROUP BEHAVIORAL SERVICES, INC. · filed 2011-03-16(G)

The total one hundred dollar per calendar day penalty provided for in this Subsection shall not exceed three thousand dollars in the aggregate.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) subjects an employer to penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Dugas v. AutoZone, Inc. · filed 2012-12-05(F)(2)

Failure to pay timely subjects the employer to penalties and attorney fees unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Subsection (G) imposes penalties and attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment remains unpaid for thirty days, but no penalty applies when nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control.

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

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(G) (emphasis added) provides for penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases as follows: ... A final, nonappealable judgment includes a workers’ compensation settlement agreement, and triggers La.R.S. 23:1201(G) upon court approval and entry into judgment. Williamson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 12-148 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/12), 92 So.3d 1218. ... Additionally, because we conclude nonpayment was the result of conditions over which the employer had no control, the WCJ did not err in denying statutory penalties and attorney fees, in this case, for Appellees’ failure to pay the funds within thirty days of the final and nonappealable judgment.

Section 23:1201(G) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees for an award under a final, non-appealable judgment that remains unpaid more than 30 days after it is due, unless the employer lacked control over the nonpayment, and the penal provision is strictly construed.

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

La. R.S. 23:1201(G) is a penal statute which must be strictly construed. ... The crucial inquiry in determining whether to impose penalties and attorney fees is whether the payor had an articulable and objective reason to deny payment at the time it took action. ... Here, we find that Trahan’s holding also applies to the award of penalties and attorney fees in the matter sub judice. In Trahan, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a claimant is eligible for an award of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to a valid and enforceable compromise unless the defendant’s failure to pay within 30 days resulted from conditions over which it had no control.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely workers’ compensation payments, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment was beyond the employer’s control.

Howard v. Rio Sol Nursing Home · filed 2022-06-15(F)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides for the assessment of penalties and attorney fees against an employer for failure to timely pay workers’ compensation benefits. Penalties and attorney fees will not be assessed against an employer if the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment is due to circumstances beyond the employer’s control. ... This reliance was reasonable and therefore, Rio Sol reasonably controverted the claim. As such, we find that the WCJ did not err in denying penalties and attorney’s fees.

Section 23:1201 mandates penalties and attorney's fees when an employer makes an unexcused late payment of an accident-related medical bill and the late payment is uncontradicted.

Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza · filed 1996-05-21

Where the fact of late payment is uncontradicted and an employer fails to show that the late payment resulted from conditions over which the employer had no control or that the employee's right to have the bill paid by the employer is controverted, La.R.S. 23:1201 and 1201.2 mandate an award of penalties and attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201(G) imposes penalties and reasonable attorney fees for an employer's failure to pay a final, nonappealable workers' compensation judgment within thirty days, based on post-judgment conduct even when the injury predates the amendment.

McCoy v. KMB Transport, Inc. · filed 1999-05-14(G)

We choose to follow the rule implicitly adopted by the Third Circuit, and we hold that LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G), as amended by La. Acts 1995, No. 1137, § 1, effective June 29, 1995, applies to McCoy's action for penalties for KMB' failure to pay within thirty days the final nonappealable judgment rendered on June 1997, where McCoy's injury occurred prior to the 1995 amendment. Thus the trial court correctly applied section 1201(G) to this case in awarding penalties and attorney fees to plaintiff.

Section 23:1201(G) imposes penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an award under a final, nonappealable judgment is unpaid thirty days after it becomes due, unless nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Bellanger v. LaSalle Community Action · filed 2002-10-02(G)

Since we have determined, above, that reciting the terms of the settlement into the record and following La.R.S. 23:1272's procedures constituted a final, nonappealable judgment, Ms. Bellanger's funds were due within 30 days from March 23, 2001. Because payment was not made to Ms. Bellanger within thirty days of the due date and, in fact, was made more than sixty days afterwards, we affirm, both, the statutory penalties of $4,316.92, as well as attorney's fees, totaling $1,500.00.

Section 23:1201 provides penalties and attorney’s fees when an employer or insurer fails to pay benefits on time, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the failure results from conditions beyond its control.

Harris v. National Gypsum Co. · filed 2002-10-02

The Court held that statutory penalties and attorney’s fees shall be awarded if the employer or insurer fails to timely pay benefits due claimant pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201 unless: (1) the claim is reasonably controverted or (2) such nonpayments results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. ... However, as discussed above, the defendant was not entitled to a stay order and should have continued making payments. ... Accordingly, the worker’s compensation judge’s ruling is affirmed.

Under subsection (G), reasonable reliance on claimant’s counsel to forward unpaid medical bills can defeat penalties and attorney fees for delayed payment of those bills.

Minor v. J & J Carpet, Inc. · filed 2012-02-01(G)

Given the deference afforded the workers’ compensation judge’s findings regarding the reasoning behind the defendants’ failure to timely pay the medical benefits, we find no error in the workers’ compensation judge’s determination that the defendants were not liable for penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G). The record supports the workers’ compensation judge’s finding that the defendants reasonably relied on a letter sent by claimant’s counsel on July 13, 2010 indicating that the claimant would forward any unpaid medical bills to the defendants.

Section 23:1201(G) requires an award payable under a final, nonappealable judgment, including a Medicare set-aside funding obligation in an approved lump-sum settlement, to be paid within thirty days after it becomes due or penalties and attorney fees may apply.

MacFarlane v. SCHNEIDER NAT. BULK CARRIERS · filed 2008-04-30(G)

We find that La. R.S. 23:1201(G) applies to the facts of the instant case. ... While the language of La. R.S. 23:1201(G) does not specifically address the funding of Medicare set-aside accounts, it plainly provides for penalties and attorney's fees for non-payment of "any award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment" within thirty days after the judgment becomes due. ... Accordingly, we find that the clear and unambiguous language of La. R.S. 23:1201(G) applies, and that the MSA should have been funded within thirty days of OWC approval of the settlement.

Subsection (G) requires penalties and attorney fees for an unpaid final, nonappealable award after thirty days when the delay resulted from the employer’s own actions; the exception applies when conditions beyond the employer’s control caused the delay.

Fontenot v. Sonnier · filed 2010-04-07(G)

We disagree with Mr. Sonnier’s interpretation of this statute. First off, the language “shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted” does not apply to this subsection, as it does to La. R.S. 23:1201(F). Subsection F applies to the actions of the employer prior to a final judgment/settlement being obtained, whereas Subsection G applies to the actions of the employer subsequent to such a time. ... Second, a plain reading of Subsection G raises two questions: (1) was the payment timely, and (2) if not, did the delay result from conditions beyond the employer’s control. ... If the WCJ finds that the employer had no control over the delay, then no penalties and attorney fees are awarded. However, if the delay resulted from the employer’s own actions, then the award is automatic.

Section 23:1201(I) subjects an employer who discontinues workers’ compensation benefits to penalties and attorney fees when the discontinuance is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Wilton C. Portalis, Jr. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2008-05-14(I)

Under this provision, an employer who discontinues payment of benefits is subject to penalties and attorney fees “when such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.”

Subsection (I) authorizes a penalty of up to $8,000 when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues payment of claims, including court-ordered benefits after judgment.

Tidwell v. Premier Staffing, Inc. · filed 2013-10-30(I)

Tidwell has demonstrated she is entitled to penalties under the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1201(1) which provides a cap at $8,000.00 rather than $3,000.00 as provided under La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... The phrase “any time” recited in La.R.S. 23” 1201(1) certainly includes after judgment was rendered and affirmed by this court.

Subsection (I) requires a discontinuance of benefits to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, while subsection (G) does not; the maximum penalty is $3,000 under (G) and $8,000 under (I).

Louvier v. U-Haul Company of Louisiana · filed 2020-02-19(G), (I)

Louvier requested penalties under either La.R.S. 23:1201(G) or La.R.S. 23:1201(I). The difference in the two provisions is that La.R.S. 23:1201(I) requires the discontinuance of benefits “to be arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause.” To the contrary, La.R.S. 23:1201(G) does not require the discontinuance of benefits to be “arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause.” The amount of penalties under the statute differ. La.R.S. 23:1201(G) caps the maximum penalty allowable at $3,000.00, whereas the maximum amount allowable under La.R.S. 23:1201(I) is $8,000.00. ... In reviewing the record, we find even if the OWC’s penalty award was made under La.R.S. 23:1201(I), the amount of the penalty was not abusively low. U-Haul reinstated Louvier’s benefits within forty-two days (from May 15, 2017 to June 27, 2017) and twenty-eight days (From August 22, 2017 to September, 18, 2017). No litigation was required to have the benefits reinstated and the reinstatement occurred prior to the filing of the motion by Louvier. The law is clear the OWC “has great discretion in the award of penalties and attorney fees, and [its’] decision will not be disturbed unless it is clearly wrong.” Gray v. Premier Staffing, 99-197, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/2/99), 736 So.2d 340, 344. We find no abuse of the discretion afforded the OWC in such matters and hereby affirm the $3,000.00 award of penalties for the discontinuation of benefits.

Section 23:1201 does not govern penalties for discontinuing workers’ compensation benefits; section 23:1201.2 governs those claims.

Norris v. KAW Transport, Inc. · filed 1999-11-03

In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99); 737 So.2d 41, the supreme court explained that La.R.S. 23:1201.2, as amended by Acts 1995, No. 1137, § 1, effective June 29, 1995, rather than La.R.S. 23:1201, now governs the discontinuance of payment of claims due and arising under Workers’ Compensation Law. ... Because this case involves the discontinuance of the payment of benefits, penalties are not available to Norris for KAW/Great West’s actions in that regard.

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

Adams v. Sysco Food Service of New Orleans · filed 2008-06-30(F) and (F)(2)

La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that failure to provide payment of compensation "shall result in the assessment of a penalty ... 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." The penalty provision shall not apply, however, "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). ... SYSCO denied benefits and reimbursement based on its contention that Adams' claims had prescribed. Even after the exception of prescription was denied, the denial upheld by this Court on the writ application, and with writs denied by the supreme court, SYSCO still refused to pay Adams any past due benefits, or to reimburse Adams for mileage or medical expenses. ... We find no manifest error in the OWC court's determination that SYSCO is subject to penalties and attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney’s fees for an employer’s arbitrary and capricious failure to pay indemnity or medical benefits.

Gasway v. Cellxion, Inc. · filed 2010-01-27(F)

Penalties and attorney’s fees may be awarded for failure to provide payment of indemnity or medical benefits. ... It is a well-established jurisprudential principle that the determination of whether an employer is to be assessed attorney’s fees and penalties is a question of fact and the WCJ’s findings shall not be disturbed absent | nmanifest error.

Section 23:1201 subjects an employer to penalties and attorney’s fees for untimely payments unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Goldsby v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORP. · filed 2010-03-10

Failure to make timely payments subjects an employer to penalties and attorney’s fees unless the claim is reasonably controverted. La. R.S. 23:1201. For a claim to be reasonably controverted, an employer must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base its denial of benefits. ... The employer must have engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the information presented by the claimant. ... The determination that penalties and attorney fees are warranted is determined based on the facts known by the employer at the time of its refusal. ... The assessment of penalties and attorney fees is a finding of fact which should not be disturbed on appeal absent manifest error.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney’s fees for failing to pay indemnity or medical benefits.

Rainwater v. TANGO TRANSPORT · filed 2010-03-10(F)

Penalties and attorney’s fees may be awarded for failure to provide payment of indemnity or medical benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(F); Moore v. Transmissions, Inc., 41,472 (La.App. 2d Cir.09/27/06), 940 So.2d 694. It is a well-established jurisprudential principle that |7the determination of whether an employer is to be assessed attorney’s fees and penalties is a question of fact and the WCJ’s findings shall not be disturbed absent manifest error.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and reasonable attorney fees when a health care provider prevails on a payment claim, unless the claim was reasonably controverted.

Agilus Health v. Accor Lodging North America · filed 2010-03-10(F)(4), (F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(4) provides that: “In the event that the health care provider prevails on a claim for payment of his fee, penalties as provided in this Section and reasonable attorney fees based upon actual hours worked may be awarded and paid directly to the health care provider.” ... However, we can find neither a close factual issue nor that the claim was reasonably controverted. Rather, we find a violation of a statutorily mandated payment schedule. Therefore, the WCJ appropriately awarded both penalties and attorney’s fees.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties for failing to pay workers’ compensation benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Summers v. Ritz-Carlton New Orleans · filed 2015-05-28(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) imposes a penalty for “failure to provide payment.” Penalties will not be imposed if “the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” ... We find appellants reasonably controverted these claims, for the stated reasons above. Accordingly, we reverse the WCJ’s award of penalties in the amount of $8,000.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,000.00.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney’s fees for untimely benefit payments unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from circumstances beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Leidelmeijen v. Ferncrest Manor Nursing Home Luba Workers' Comp. · filed 2016-03-16(F)

Statutory penalties and attorney’s fees shall be awarded if the employer or insurer fails to timely pay benefits due the claimant under La. R.S. 23:1201 unless: (1) the claim is reasonably controverted or (2) such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. ... Given our findings in Defendants’ favor regarding dental, TMJ, psychiatric, and seizure treatment and related prescription expenses coupled with the malingering diagnosis, we find the record establishes that Defendants reasonably controverted all of Mr. Leidelmeijen’s claims. The WCJ thus was not manifestly erroneous in denying his request for penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Penalties and attorney’s fees may be awarded to a health provider only when it prevails on its claim for payment; a prescribed underlying medical-benefits claim cannot support such an award.

Tulane University Hospital & Clinic v. Port of New Orleans · filed 2016-06-08(F)(4)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(4) provides that | ¿penalties and attorney’s fees may be awarded “in the event a health provider prevails on a claim for payment.” Because Tulane’s underlying claim for medical benefits is prescribed, it has no claim for penalties or attorney’s fees related to the employer’s failure to pay said benefits.

Section 23:1201(I) subjects an employer or insurer that arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues benefits to a penalty of up to $8,000 and a reasonable attorney fee.

Cembell Industries, Inc. & the Gray Insurance Company v. Smith · filed 2025-02-11(I)

This case involves a discontinuance, rather than nonpayment, of benefits. The standard by which the employer or its insurer’s conduct for a discontinuance of benefits is evaluated is set forth in La. R.S. 23:1201(I). ... In determining whether an employer acted arbitrarily and capriciously, this Court has observed that “employers must possess an articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took action.” ... The jurisprudence has imposed a duty to investigate on employers. ... Given this trio of factors, we cannot conclude the WCJ was manifestly erroneous in finding the termination of benefits was arbitrary and capricious.

Section 23:1201(E) permits penalties and attorney's fees when an employer fails to promptly investigate and reasonably address a compensation claim after receiving medical information indicating a work-related injury.

Eglin v. United Gas Pipeline · filed 1994-04-06(E)

United Gas next argues error in the assessment of penalties and attorney's fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201 E and 23:1201.2. ... We find that the receipt of this report, along with the medical bills of Dr. Sasser, should have triggered an immediate investigation into the status of this claim. However, the defendant's only response was to schedule an IME with Dr. Foster some three months later. Under these facts, we find no error in the award of penalties and attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201 authorizes penalties and attorney's fees when an employer is arbitrary and capricious in reducing workers' compensation benefits.

Crooks v. Town of Ball · filed 1994-11-02

The Town was arbitrary and capricious in reducing his benefits and the Administrative Hearing Officer correctly assessed it with penalties and attorney's fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201 and 23:1201.2.

Section 23:1201 does not support penalties and attorney's fees when the employer and insurer reasonably controverted the claimant's compensation and medical-expense claims.

Penton v. SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION · filed 1994-11-30

Under the facts of this case, which are described above, we cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous in denying penalties and attorney's fees. The trial court could reasonably conclude that Siemens and Zurich's conduct did not meet the standards for imposition of penalties and attorney's fees under R.S. 23:1201 and 23:1201.2.

Section 23:1201 permits attorney’s fees and penalties when workers’ compensation benefits are terminated arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause.

Fruge v. Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 5 · filed 1994-12-07

It is well settled that a workers' compensation claimant is not entitled to attorney's fees and penalties unless the termination of benefits is found to be arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause. La. R.S. 23:1201; 1201.2.

Section 23:1201 treats compensation and medical-expense claims as reasonably controverted, and therefore not subject to penalties and attorney's fees, when the employer or insurer had a reasonable basis to believe they were not due.

Herty v. City of New Orleans · filed 1995-04-13

The employee's right to receive compensation benefits and payment for medical expenses will be deemed reasonably controverted if the employer or insurer had a reasonable basis for believing that compensation and medical expenses were not due.

Section 23:1201(F) allows penalties and attorney’s fees when an employer untimely pays benefits and acts arbitrarily, capriciously, and without cause.

Brady v. Northland Frozen Food · filed 1996-10-09(F)

An employee may receive penalties and attorney’s fees under the Workers’ Compensation Act if an employer is untimely in its payment of benefits and its actions are found to be arbitrary, capricious, and without cause.

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

Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc. · filed 1998-01-21(F)(2)

The supreme court has held that penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201 and La.R.S. 23:1201.2 are applicable only in the absence of a reasonable controversy. See Williams v. Regional Transit Authority, 546 So.2d 150 (La.1989). Accordingly, we find no clear error.

Section 23:1201 does not require penalties and attorney's fees when a bona fide factual dispute gives the insurer probable cause to deny benefits.

Oxley v. Sattler · filed 1998-02-18

Second, Oxley asserts entitlement to attorney's fees and statutory penalties, citing La.R.S. 23:1201. ... However, we find, in light of the circumstances surrounding Oxley's claim for benefits, the representative's failure to investigate further does not entitle him to fees and penalties. Because there was a "bona fide factual dispute as to whether [Oxley's condition] was work-related," the insurer had "`probable cause'" to refuse benefits.

Section 23:1201(E) provides the penalties-and-attorney’s-fees remedy, as part of the workers’ compensation compromise, for an employer’s arbitrary and capricious refusal to pay benefits rather than permitting a tort suit.

Stotts v. City of Lafayette · filed 1998-03-06(E)

We refuse to upset the balance struck by the legislative compromise governing the rights of employees and employers in employment-related accidents. La.R.S. 23:1201 E and La.R.S. 23:1201.2 are part of that compromise. To rule otherwise, would open the floodgates to suits in tort for an employer's arbitrary and capricious failure to pay compensation benefits and medical benefits, effectively eliminating the penalties and attorney's fees provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.

Section 23:1201 makes an employer or insurer subject to penalties and attorney's fees when its failure to timely pay compensation is arbitrary or capricious or without probable cause, subject to strict construction of the penal provisions.

Antrainer v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. · filed 1998-04-08(E) and (F)

If the decision not to pay compensation timely is arbitrary or capricious, or without probable cause, the employer or insurer is subject to penalties and attorney's fees. La. R.S. 23:1201 E and F; La. R.S. 23:1201.2. The statutes providing for penalties and attorney's fees, which are penal in nature, must be strictly construed. ... An assessment of penalties and attorney's fees is proper, unless the employee's rights to benefits are reasonably controverted.

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

Traweek v. City of West Monroe · filed 1998-05-13F(2)

The failure to pay timely subjects the defendant to penalties and reasonable attorney's fees unless "the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control." La. R.S. 23:1201 F(2). To reasonably controvert a claim, the employer or insurer must have factual or medical information of such a nature that it reasonably counters that provided by the claimant. ... The facts and law regarding mental injury were reasonably controverted by defendant.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney's fees when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a claim and its failure to pay benefits is arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause, but not for litigating a close issue.

Wiley v. Grand Casino Avoyelles · filed 1999-04-21

An employer will only be responsible for penalties and attorney's fees if it fails to reasonably controvert a workers' compensation claim, and if its failure to pay benefits is arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause. La.R.S. 23:1201, 1201.2. However, an employer will not be penalized for bringing a close issue to court. Granger v. Nelson Logging, 96-223 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/4/96); 685 So.2d 400.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney’s fees for untimely benefit payments unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Richard v. Workover & Completion · filed 2000-12-06(F)

La.R.S. 23:1201(F) establishes that penalties and attorney's fees shall be assessed against an employer or its workers' compensation insurer for its failure to timely pay benefits, unless the claim has been reasonably controverted or nonpayment is a result of conditions over which the employer has no control. ... We find that in this case, Workover had a reasonable basis to believe the case did not fall within the scope of the workers' compensation and, therefore, penalties and attorney's fees were erroneously imposed.

Section 23:1201(F) makes the applicable penalty mandatory for the covered payment violation and requires attorney-fee awards to be reasonable.

Soileau v. R & H Refractory Services, Inc. · filed 2001-10-03(F)

Therefore, given the mandatory nature of the penalty provision provided at La.R.S. 23:1201(F), we affirm the penalty assessed for this mistake. ... While we agree that Soileau is entitled to an award of attorney's fees under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), we point out that the award must be reasonable and find the amount granted herein to be exorbitant.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) precludes penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer's failure to timely pay medical benefits results from conditions beyond its control.

Smith v. Jitney Jungle of America · filed 2001-12-05(F)(2)

Such medical benefits are required to be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives written notice of the charges, with failure to do so resulting in the imposition of penalties and reasonable attorney fees. La. R.S. 23:1201(E) and (F). However, such penalties and attorney fees will not be imposed if nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... Considering the ongoing investigation and four requests made by Crawford & Company, the delay appears to have been beyond its control. ... Considering the finding of a good faith effort by Crawford & Company as relates to its investigation of this bill, the WCJ's assessment of penalties and attorney fees under the circumstances was clearly in error. See, La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Section 23:1201 allows penalties and attorney's fees when an employer fails to pay benefits, does not reasonably controvert the claim, and cannot show that nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond its control.

McCartney v. Orleans Parish School Bd. · filed 1999-09-29

Because defendant did not reasonably controvert claimant's entitlement to medical *827 benefits and the nonpayment of benefits did not result from conditions over which the employer had no control, the worker's compensation judge's decision to award penalties and attorney's fees to claimant was not clearly wrong.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney's fees when the employer reasonably controverts a claim.

White v. Fresenius Medical Care · filed 2001-12-12(F)(2)

Certainly the face of the medical records, which evidence Ms. White's failure to report her injuries after the accident or correlate her pain to the work-related accident, reveal a basis on which the employer could reasonably controvert the claim. Accordingly, the award of statutory penalties and attorney's fees is erroneous.

Section 23:1201(F) allows attorney’s fees when an employer relies on incomplete medical evidence to deny a requested disability reclassification; penalties require proof of unpaid benefits or withheld consent to a treating physician.

Chavis v. Dillard's, Inc. · filed 2011-12-21(F)

Dillard’s failed to ascertain Chavis’ medical condition when she requested to have her status changed to totally and permanently disabled. Rather, it relied on incomplete medical evidence to deny her request and forced her to bring a suit to get her status changed. ... In this case, Chavis did not allege any benefits were unpaid nor did she allege that Dillard’s failed to consent to her request to choose a treating physician.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer untimely pays benefits or medical expenses unless the claim was reasonably controverted, meaning the employer had sufficient factual or medical information to counter the claimant's evidence.

Zavala v. St. Joe Brick Works · filed 2008-10-31(F)

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(F) covers situations where the employer fails to commence payment of benefits timely, to pay continued installments timely, or to pay medical benefits timely. ... Under this section, both penalties and attorney fees are recoverable unless the claims are reasonably controverted. ... A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual and/or medical information to counter evidence presented by the claimant.

Section 23:1201 allows penalties and attorney fees for unpaid workers’ compensation benefits unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim based on a nonfrivolous dispute or sufficient factual or medical information.

Ardoin v. Firestone Polymers, LLC · filed 2009-12-30(B), (E)

If the employer fails to timely pay workers’ compensation benefits, the employee is entitled to penalties and reasonable attorney fees unless the employee’s claim is reasonably controverted. See La.R.S. 23:1201. An employer could reasonably controvert a claim if the employer “engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.”

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for covered nonpayment, but § 23:1201(F)(2) exempts claims that are reasonably controverted or whose nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Leger v. Calcasieu Parish School Board · filed 2010-04-07(F), (F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 sets out the circumstances under which penalties and attorney fees may be rewarded. ... The School Board argues, and we agree, that the penalty and fees were improperly awarded under this statute in light of the language of La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). It reads: “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.” ... Accordingly, we find that the award of penalties and attorney fees was not warranted.

Subsection (F) makes penalties and attorney fees recoverable for untimely workers’ compensation payments unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim with a valid legal, factual, or medical basis.

Celestine v. Firestone Polymers, LLC · filed 2010-05-05(F)

Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201(F), when an employer fails to commence payment of benefits timely, to pay continued installments timely, or to pay medical benefits timely, both penalties and attorney fees are recoverable unless the claims are reasonably controverted. A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual and/or medical information to counter evidence presented by the claimant.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) denies penalties and attorney fees when nonpayment is reasonably controverted or results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

City of Bossier City v. Colvin · filed 2010-05-19(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 employer or insurer must have “some valid reason or evidence on which to base his denial of benefits.”

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control, but the employer must continue investigating and assessing the facts before denying benefits.

Green v. National Oilwell Varco · filed 2011-04-27(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 is the relevant statute in determining whether an employer should be assessed penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay indemnity or medical benefits. The statute provides that no penalties or attorney fees shall be assessed “if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer . . . had no control. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). Further, “[t]o avoid the imposition of penalties and attorney fees for the nonpayment of benefits, the employer has a continuing obligation to investigate, to assemble, and to assess factual information before denying benefits.”

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when an employer reasonably controverts the workers’ compensation claim.

Brown v. a M Logging · filed 2011-08-04(F)(2)

With respect to the awards of penalties and attorneys’ fees, we find that neither award is warranted under the facts of this case, because the claimant’s request for workers’ compensation benefits was reasonably controverted by A M Logging.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when an employer’s nonpayment is reasonably controverted, meaning there is a nonfrivolous legal dispute or the employer has factual or medical information reasonably countering the claimant’s evidence.

Day v. Superior Derrick Services · filed 2011-12-07(F)(2)

Failure to pay these benefits results in penalties under Subsection (F), in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 per claim, with the caveat that penalties and attorney fees are not warranted 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). ... A claim is reasonably controverted where there is a nonfrivolous legal dispute and/or the employer “possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.”

Subsection (F) permits penalties and attorney fees for unpaid workers’ compensation benefits only when the employer or insurer has not reasonably controverted the claim; a bona fide, nonfrivolous dispute supported by factual or medical information precludes those awards.

Quave v. Airtrol, Inc. · filed 2012-06-08(F)

However, we do find that the WCJ abused her discretion in assessing penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F) against the defendants h fin this case. Statutory provisions permitting the assessment of penalties and attorney fees for nonpayment of workers’ compensation benefits are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Penalties should not be imposed in doubtful cases, where a bona fide dispute exists as to the claimant’s entitlement to benefits, and the mere fact that an employer loses a disputed claim is not determinative.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees, but an award is not warranted when the claim is reasonably controverted.

Noe v. Basile Police Department · filed 2012-11-07

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 provides for the imposition of penalties and attorney fees; however, such an award is not warranted if the claim is reasonably controverted.

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

Sensat v. Washington Group International, Inc. · filed 2012-12-12(F)(2)

The penalties and attorney fees, however, do not apply if the claim is “reasonably controverted” or if non-payment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... WGI’s legal argument was far from frivolous. This was a very close question.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits an employer to reasonably controvert a disputed claim for medical benefits, and penalties and attorney fees may follow when it fails to do so.

Lopez v. Marques Food Distributors · filed 2013-02-21(F)(2)

Workers’ compensation law provides that an employer may reasonably controvert a disputed claim for medical benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... After trial, the workers’ compensation judge found that Marques failed to authorize and failed to reasonably controvert Mr. Lopez’s entitlement to psychiatric treatment recommended by Mr. Lopez’s treating physician on three separate occasions. ... Thus, we find no error in the workers’ compensation judge’s conclusion that Marques is liable for the payment of penalties and attorney fees for its failure to authorize the medical treatment requested by Mr. Lopez’s treating physician.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney’s fees when the claim is reasonably controverted, meaning the employer had an articulable and objective reason to deny benefits when it acted.

Garcia v. Hico, Inc. · filed 2013-03-18(F)(2)

Section (F)(2) of La. R.S. 23:1201 provides that the penalties and attorney’s fees provisions shall not apply if the claim is “reasonably controverted.” ... In other words, “[t]he crucial inquiry in determining whether to impose penalties and attorney’s fees on an employer is whether the employer had an articu-lable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took the action.”

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control; a claim is reasonably controverted when the employer or insurer has valid supporting reasons or evidence and factual or medical information to counter the claimant's information.

Vargas v. Petrin Corp. · filed 2013-03-22(F)(2)

The failure to provide payment of benefits will result in a penalty and attorney fees assessment unless “the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” ... The phrase “reasonably controverted” means that the employer or its insurer must have “some valid reason or evidence” on which to base the denial of benefits. ... To determine whether a claimant’s claim was reasonably controverted, the WCJ must ascertain whether the employer or its insurer possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time the employer and its insurer refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed. ... While these facts were ultimately found to be inadequate to defeat Mr. Alvarez’s claim, we agree they were sufficient to reasonably controvert the claim. We detect no manifest error in the WCJ’s conclusion. Therefore, no penalties or attorney fees are warranted.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for untimely benefit payments unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Salazar v. Command Construction, LLC · filed 2013-03-27(F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that failure to provide timely payment as set out in the statute shall result in the assessment of a penalty in an amount up to the greater of 12% of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits, or $50 per calendar day for each day in which any and all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid, together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim. The statute provides further, however, that the $50 per calendar day penalty shall not exceed a maximum of $2,000 in the aggregate for any claim. Finally, the statute sets the maximum amount of penalties that may be imposed at a hearing on the merits, regardless of the number of penalties that might be imposed, at $8,000. The penalty subsection does not apply “if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). 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. Unreasonably controverting a claim, which is the exception at issue in this case, requires action of a less egregious nature than that required for arbitrary and capricious behavior. Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration *129and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation. Stated another way, such behavior arises from unrestrained exercise of the will or personal preference or lacks a predictable pattern.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when a claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s control, while requiring the employer to investigate and assess the facts before denying benefits.

Doucet v. National Oilwell Varco Fluid Control · filed 2013-05-22(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 is the relevant statute in determining whether an employer should be assessed penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay indemnity or medical benefits. The statute provides that no penalties or attorney fees shall be assessed “if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer ... had no control. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).” ... After reviewing the testimony and evidence in this matter, we are convinced that NOV did not reasonably controvert Dou-cet’s claim. Accordingly, the WCJ did not err in awarding penalties and attorney fees to Doucet.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties for unpaid compensation unless the claim was reasonably controverted, with the penalty calculated as the greater of 12% of unpaid compensation or $50 per day up to $2,000.

Phillips v. Sanderson Farms, Inc. · filed 2013-11-01(F)(2)

Penalties shall be assessed either at 12% of the unpaid compensation, or at $50.00 per each calendar day that benefits are unpaid, up to $2,000.00, whichever amount is greater. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). The OWC assessed Sanderson $2,000.00 in penalties, which is within the guidelines of the statute.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) withholds penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim.

Darlene Vital v. Landmark of Lake Charles D/B/A Lake Charles Healthcare, LLC · filed 2014-02-12(F)(2)

Penalties and attorney fees for failing to authorize medical treatment by an employer or insurer are governed by La.R.S. 23:1201(F). That section does not authorize penalties or attorney fees if the claim is reasonably controverted by the employer or insurer.

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

Bradford v. Jury · filed 2014-05-14(F)(2)

Second, the failure to provide payment of benefits will result in penalties 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.” ... 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(F)(2) requires a penalty for failure to pay compensation benefits or approve treatment unless the claim was reasonably controverted, and the employer must show reasonable controversion throughout the period benefits were denied.

Buchanan v. LUBA Workers' Comp. · filed 2015-02-04(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201 governs the award of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases. Failure to provide payment of compensation benefits or to approve treatment “shall” result in a penalty. The statute provides that the penalty “shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted.” *257La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). The employer bears the burden of reasonably controverting the claim. Ewing v. Hilburn, 11-1243 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/12), 88 So.3d 640. To avoid penalties and attorney fees, the employer must prove that the claim was reasonably controverted throughout the period during which benefits were denied. Id.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for failing to authorize medical treatment unless the claim was reasonably controverted, judged by the employer’s objective reason at the time of its initial refusal.

Soniat v. Crown Buick & Risk Management Services · filed 2014-12-16(F)

The mere fact the Medical Director subsequently agreed with Crown Buick’s decision to deny the injections neither exonerates Crown Buick for its improper actions nor protects it from the assessment of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim, meaning it has sufficient factual or medical information to counter the worker’s claim and is not litigating frivolously.

Gibson v. Resin Systems, Inc. and Luba · filed 2015-10-07(F)(2)

“An injured worker's claim is considered reasonably controverted when a court determines that the employer or insurer has not engaged in a frivolous legal dispute or that the employer or insurer possessed factual and/or medical information sufficient to reasonably counter that presented by the injured worker.” ... On this issue, we find the trial court committed manifest error in awarding penalties and attorney fees for failure to pay indemnity and medical benefits. ... We find the factual issues surrounding the circumstances of Mr. Gibson’s accident at work were sufficiently close that the employer should not be penalized for bringing the case to court. The award of penalties and attorney fees is reversed.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) precludes penalties and attorney fees when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim by possessing sufficient factual or medical information to counter it and not engaging in a frivolous dispute.

Gibson v. Resin Systems, Inc. · filed 2015-10-07(F)(2)

“An injured worker s claim is considered reasonably controverted when a court determines that the employer or insurer has not engaged in a frivolous legal dispute or that the employer or insurer possessed factual and/or medical information sufficient to reasonably counter that presented by the injured worker.” Hunter, 934 So.2d at 236. ... |nOn this issue, we find the trial court committed manifest error in awarding penalties and attorney fees for failure to pay indemnity and medical benefits. Mr. Gibson did not inform his employer at the time of his accident on December 14 or. December 19, 2012, that he had been injured at work. The employer did not learn of .the injury until.it received a letter from Mr.' Gibson’s counsel on January 18, 2013. The employer conducted an investigation that discovered scant evidence to support Mr. Gibson’s claim. Mr. Gibson’s medical records were inconsistent about whether he suffered an injury at work. We find the factual issues surrounding the circumstances of Mr. Gibson’s accident at work were sufficiently close that the employer should not be penalized for bringing the case to court. The' award of penalties and attorney fees is revérsed.

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

Smith v. Highlines Construction Co. · filed 2016-07-06(F)(2)

Failure to provide payment of benefits will result in a penalty and attorney fees “unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... As such, it cannot be said that Gray reasonably controverted this claim.

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

Thibodaux v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. · filed 2016-12-21(F)(2)

“A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter evidence presented by the claimant.”

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay benefits or authorize medical treatment unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Bradley v. St. Francis Med. Ctr. · filed 2017-09-27(F)(2)

An employer's failure to provide payment of benefits or authorize medical treatment will result in a penalty and attorney fees "unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control." ... The WCJ denied Bradley's request for an award of penalties and attorney fees because it found Defendant had a reasonable basis for denying the benefits. Considering evidence of Bradley's preexisting degenerative disc disease and the medical testimony provided by Drs. Partington and Smith, we find no manifest error in the WCJ concluding penalties and attorney fees were not warranted.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) makes the penalty-and-fee provision inapplicable when the employer reasonably controverts the claim or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Johnson v. Nw. La. War Veterans Home · filed 2018-02-28(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(F) governs the assessment of penalties and award of attorney fees for an employer's failure to pay benefits or authorize medical treatment. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) provides that Subsection (F) is inapplicable if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. Smith v. Graphic Packaging, Inc. , 51,590 (La. App. 2 Cir. 09/27/17), 244 So.3d 755, 2017 WL 4273701, writ denied , 17-1806 (La. 12/15/17), 231 So.3d 640 ; Arrant v. Wayne Acree PLS, Inc. , 51,238 (La. App. 2 Cir. 05/02/17), 218 So.3d 737. In order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base the denial of benefits.

Section 23:1201(F) requires a penalty and reasonable attorney fees for a failure to pay benefits as required, but § 23:1201(F)(2) excludes claims that are reasonably controverted.

Jeansonne v. Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections Youth Services, Office of Juvenile Justice and Sedgwick Claims Management Services · filed 2018-06-06(F)(2)

Accordingly, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides guidelines for compliance, such as the time and place for payment, and states that the “failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section . . . shall result in the assessment of a penalty . . . together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim[.]” However, penalties and attorney fees “shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted[.]” La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Section 23:1201(F) provides for penalties and reasonable attorney fees when workers’ compensation benefits are not paid as required, but § 23:1201(F)(2) exempts a claim that is reasonably controverted.

Jeansonne v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Youth Servs., Office of Juvenile Justice · filed 2018-06-06(F)(2)

Accordingly, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides guidelines for compliance, such as the time and place for payment, and states that the "failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section ... shall result in the assessment of a penalty ... together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim[.]" However, penalties and attorney fees "shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted[.]" La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Subsection 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney fees when the employer reasonably controverts the claim, while Subsection (I) penalizes arbitrary and capricious discontinuance of claim payments.

James Burnett, Sr. v. Village of Esterwood · filed 2019-05-01(F)(2), (I)

However, the employer is not liable for penalties if the claim is reasonably controverted. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). An employer is also subject to a penalty if it is found that discontinuance of payment of claims is arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause. La.R.S. 23:1201(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(I) requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay workers' compensation benefits without reasonably controverting the claim; a reasonable controversion requires a valid reason or evidence, including a non-frivolous legal dispute or countervailing factual or medical information.

Bailey v. Rent A Center · filed 2019-05-29(I)

Under La. R.S. 23:1201(I), when an employer fails to pay workers' compensation benefits, penalties and attorney fees shall be assessed if the employer did not reasonably controvert the claim. Redmann v. Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co., 11-651 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012), 88 So.3d 1087, 1096, writ denied , 12-710 (La. 5/18/12), 89 So.3d 1192. A claim is "reasonably controverted" if the employer has some valid reason or evidence upon which to base its denial of benefits. Id. To determine whether a claimant's right to benefits has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer 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 the employer refused to pay the benefits allegedly owed. Rowe-Treaudo, supra.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) does not require penalties and attorney fees when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim, or when nonpayment results from conditions beyond its control.

Smith v. Nu Verra Environmental Solution · filed 2019-10-30(F)(2)

We decline to impose penalties and attorney fees in this case. Our review of the record shows that defendants had sufficient medical evidence from which they could have reasonably controverted claimant’s claim that his cervical surgery was causally connected to his August 2009 work accident. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find that defendants’ denial of claimant’s request for post-surgery benefits was arbitrary and capricious See, La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2); Bradley, supra.

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

Alphonso v. v. Exxon Mobil Exxon Mobil Risk Management, Inc. · filed 2020-12-09

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201, 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. Based on the factual and medical evidence, the trial court found that Mr. Alphonso’s claim was not reasonably controverted.

Section 23:1201(F)(1) bars penalties and attorney fees when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim or nonpayment results from conditions beyond its control.

Robert James Lee Guidry v. Worknet 2000, Inc. · filed 2021-08-11(F)(1)

The statute then goes on to state that “[t]his 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.” La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(1). ... Worknet and Gaiennie failed to pay benefits to Mr. Guidry on the basis that his injury was not covered by workers’ compensation benefits due to his horseplay. This is clearly provided for by La.R.S. 23:1031(D), and under this provision, the employers would not be required to pay workers’ compensation benefits. Thus, they reasonably controverted Mr. Guidry’s claim and are not subject to penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer denies a claim unless the claim is reasonably controverted; reasonable controversion requires a nonfrivolous legal dispute or factual or medical information that reasonably counters the claimant’s information.

Ryan v. Cajun Industries, L.L.C. · filed 2021-11-03(F)

Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F), a court has the authority to award penalties and attorney’s fees when a claim has been denied, unless the claim has been reasonably controverted. ... The WCJ “has great discretion in the award of penalties and attorney fees, and [its’] decision will not be disturbed unless it is clearly wrong.” ... “To reasonably controvert a claim, an employer must be ‘engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute or [possess] 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.’” ... Based on the record, we cannot say that the WCJ was manifestly erroneous in awarding penalties and attorney’s fees in this case.

Subsection (F)(2) excludes penalties for nonpayment when the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment was beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control, while subsection (I) excludes penalties and attorney fees when the employer has a reasonable basis to allege fraud.

Johnson v. Lofton Staffing Services, Inc. · filed 2022-05-04(F)(2), (I)

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.

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

Harper v. Weyerhaeuser Company · filed 2022-11-16(F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) governs the assessment of penalties and award of attorney fees for an employer’s failure to pay benefits or authorize medical treatment. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) states that 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. ... Even without the record from Dr. Mosura concerning the visit on January 22, 2019, Sedgwick still possessed enough information about Harper’s lower back history to reasonably controvert the claim. Accordingly, the WCJ was clearly wrong in finding to the contrary.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees for untimely compensation or medical benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted; the exception applies when the employer has a reasonable basis to dispute the claim.

Salter v. DeSoto Parish Police Jury and Jean Simpson Personnel Services · filed 2023-05-17(F)(2)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), an employee is entitled to an award of both penalties and attorney fees 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. ... We conclude that Mrs. Salter has not established her entitlement to penalties or attorney fees. Although Jean Simpson was unsuccessful in presenting sufficient evidence to rebut Mrs. Salter’s claim and negate the finding of an accident and injury, we do not find that the refusal to pay benefits was arbitrary or the claim was not reasonably controverted. Because of the nature of Mrs. Salter’s accident and injury, as well as her discharge from medical care, we cannot say that Jean Simpson acted unreasonably in disputing her claim. Therefore, we reverse the WCJ award of penalties and attorney fees in favor of Mrs. Salter.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) does not apply when a claim is reasonably controverted; an employer must have an articulable and objective reason, supported by sufficient factual and medical information, to deny benefits.

Brunner v. Naes Corporation and Zurich American Insurance Company · filed 2025-01-29(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), 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. ... When determining whether penalties and attorney fees should be imposed on an employer, the crucial inquiry is “whether the employer had an articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took action.” ... “To reasonably controvert a claim, an employer must have sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information provided by the employee.” ... Thus, we find the WCJ did not manifestly err in awarding penalties and attorney fees based on the arbitrary and capricious denial of Mr. Brunners’ workers’ compensation claim.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars penalties and attorney's fees when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim, meaning it has sufficient factual information to counter the claimant's factual showing.

Granger v. Logging · filed 1996-12-04(F)(2)

However, such penalties and attorney's fees shall not apply if the claim is "reasonably controverted." La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). Whether a claim is reasonably controverted turns on whether the employer or his insurer had sufficient factual information to reasonably counter the factual information presented by the claimant. Thibodeaux v. L.S. Womack, Inc., 94-1375 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/5/95), 653 So.2d 123. ... Based on a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the hearing officer committed manifest error in failing to award penalties and attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) bars statutory penalties and attorney fees when a compensation claim is reasonably controverted, and subsection (E) does not support such an award for an unsuccessful claim.

Silk v. Silk · filed 1997-04-02(F)(2), (E)

Statutory penalties and attorney fees are not allowed when a compensation claim has been reasonably controverted, that is, where the employer has a reasonable basis for believing that the claimant is not entitled to benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2); Hunt Plywood, Inc. v. Estate of Davis, supra. A claimant is entitled to attorney fees only if the failure to pay benefits is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. La. R.S. 23:1201.2. Whether penalties and attorney fees are to be awarded depends primarily upon the facts known to the employer or insurer at the time of its action. Furthermore, such provisions are penal in nature and must be narrowly construed. Hunt Plywood, Inc. v. Estate of Davis, supra. In this case, LWCC had information from Kira Silk that the plaintiffs were not living with the employee at the time of his death and that he had not provided any support to them for several months prior to his death. Therefore, there was a reasonable basis for believing that the plaintiffs were not entitled to receive death benefits. After finding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to death benefits, the hearing officer had no basis for granting penalties and attorney fees and neither La. R.S. 23:1201(E) nor 23:1201.2 countenance such an award for the unsuccessful prosecution of a cause. Hunt Plywood, Inc. v. Estate of Davis, supra. Because we affirm the hearing officer's decision that the plaintiffs are not entitled to death benefits, we also deny their claim for penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) does not permit penalties and attorney fees when the claim is reasonably controverted.

Gradney v. D.B.L. Drilling & Production Services, Inc. · filed 1997-10-08(F)(2)

The penalty for the failure to provide payment is inappropriate to claims which are reasonably controverted. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). The question of whether Mr. Gradney rebutted the presumption of intoxication was not a clear and undisputed issue. Since the issue was reasonably controverted, Mr. Gradney is not entitled to penalties and attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(E) permits statutory penalties when an employer or insurer withholds benefits without evidence reasonably controverting the employee's right to those benefits; a reasonable basis to dispute a close claim defeats penalties.

Lummus v. Shoney's of LaPlace · filed 1998-06-30(E)

An employer or its insurer is liable for statutory penalties if he withholds benefits without evidence to reasonably controvert an employee's right to those benefits. ... The test to determine whether the employee's right to such benefits was reasonably controverted by the employer is as follows: Based on the facts, medical and otherwise, known to the employer or his insurer, did he have a reasonable basis to believe that the employee was not entitled to the benefits he was claiming? ... We find that Shoney's had a reasonable basis for denying medical expenses related to carpal tunnel syndrome to the claimant. ... After a thorough review, we find it clear that the issue of whether the appellant's carpal tunnel syndrome was related to this accident was a close call, and there was evidence to reasonably controvert the claim. An employer should not be liable for penalties or attorney's fees for taking a close factual or legal question to court for resolution. ... Thus, we find the hearing officer's award of penalties manifestly erroneous.

Section 23:1201(E) allows an employer to avoid penalties and attorney's fees only by reasonably controverting the claimant's right to compensation; withholding benefits arbitrarily, capriciously, or without reasonable cause warrants penalties and attorney's fees.

Landry v. Martin Mills, Inc. · filed 1999-03-03(E)

A workers' compensation claimant is entitled to penalties and attorney's fees if benefits are withheld or terminated arbitrarily, capriciously, or without reasonable cause by the employer. La. R.S. 23:1201; 23:1201.2. ... To avoid the imposition of penalties, an employer must reasonably controvert the claimant's right to compensation. La.R.S. 23:1201(E). ... In light of these standards, we find Martin Mills' actions in the present case were arbitrary and capricious. Further, we find that Martin Mills failed to reasonably controvert Mr. Landry's claim.

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

Araujo v. Marriott Corp. · filed 1999-03-30(F)(2)

La. R.S. 23:1201 F(2) states that the penalty provision does not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or the non-payment results from conditions over which the employer has no control. ... In this case, there was a bona fide dispute as to whether plaintiff could perform the work. Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiff is not entitled to penalties and attorney's fees.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) exempts an employer or insurer from penalties when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond its control.

Joffrion v. Bryant · filed 1999-04-14(F)(2)

La.R.S. 23:1201[1] provides for the imposition of penalties in a workers' compensation proceeding unless the claim is "reasonably controverted" or the "nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control," while La.R.S. 23:1201.2[2] furnishes authority for the imposition of reasonable attorney's fees for an employer or insurer's discontinuance of benefits when that discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment of disability benefits and medical expenses, but § 23:1201(F)(2) bars them when the claim is reasonably controverted based on sufficient factual information to counter the claimant's facts.

Smith v. Ventura Foods · filed 1999-06-30(F)(2)

La.R.S. 23:1201(F) authorizes an award of penalties and attorney fees if the employer or insurer fails to timely pay disability benefits and medical expenses as outlined in La.R.S. 23:1201(A) through (E). However, under La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) penalties and attorney fees shall not be awarded if the claim is reasonably controverted. "Whether a claim is reasonably controverted turns on whether the employer or insurer had sufficient factual information to reasonably counter the factual information presented by the claimant."

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for unpaid benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted based on a nonfrivolous legal dispute or countervailing factual or medical information.

McKenzie v. Evans Quality Temporaries · filed 1999-10-26(F)

The remaining issue is the award of penalties and attorney's fees for arbitrary and capricious refusal to pay benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for assessment of a penalty and attorney fees where the employer or insurer has refused or failed to pay benefits due. However, the penalty and attorney fees do not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted. Thus, to determine whether the claimant's right has been reasonably controverted, 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)(2) does not require penalties and attorney fees when a workers' compensation claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Harrington v. Hebert · filed 2001-05-23(F)(2)

Penalties and attorney fees will not be awarded; however, where the claim is reasonably controverted, or the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. See La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2); Gibson v. Dynamic Indus., Inc., 96-1605 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/97); 692 So.2d 1320. We have reviewed the record and determined that this claim was reasonably controverted. While the facts of this case show that Mr. Harrington should receive workers' compensation benefits, they are such that a good faith denial of the claim could be made. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in failing to award penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201 requires workers' compensation indemnity and medical benefits to be paid within specified deadlines and permits penalties and attorney fees when nonpayment is not reasonably controverted.

Romero v. Northrop-Grumman · filed 2001-05-30(F)(2)

The determination of whether an employer has reasonably controverted claims for the purpose of imposing penalties and attorney fees depends on the facts known to the employer at the time of its conduct. ... To reasonably controvert a claim so as not to be liable for statutory penalties, the employer must have factual or medical information of such a nature that it reasonably counters that provided by the workers' compensation claimant. ... Absent a significant showing of factual or medical evidence upon the denial of workers' compensation benefits, and in light of such overwhelming evidence of occupational injury, we find that Northrop Grumman did not reasonably controvert Mr. Romero's claim. Accordingly, we find that the WCJ erred in failing to provide penalties and attorney fees to Mr. Romero.

Subsection (F) does not apply when the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Matthews v. Ron Williams Construction · filed 2002-02-06(F)(2)

La.R.S. 23:1201 provides for the payment of penalties and attorney fees for the nonpayment of medical benefits. However, La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) states: “This Subsection shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” Having reviewed the record, we find no manifest error in the workers’ compensation judge’s determination that the claims were reasonably controverted.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) does not impose penalties when an employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim or the nonpayment results from conditions beyond its control.

Rebel Distributors Corp., Inc. (Mary Doucet) v. Luba Worker's Comp. · filed 2014-04-02(F)(2)

Also, at the time of these transactions, La.R.S. 23:1201 (emphasis added) provided with regards to penalties and attorney fees: ... (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. ... Given this background, we find that LUBA reasonably controverted the claims at issue. Such a finding also precludes a finding that LUBA was arbitrary and capricious in failing to pay the claims at issue. We find no manifest error in the WCJ’s denial of penalties and attorney fees and no merit in this assignment of error.

Section 23:1201(J) allows only one reasonable attorney's fee for all violations addressed at one merits hearing, while subsection (F) makes the statutory penalty mandatory when medical benefits are not timely paid.

Russell v. Regency Hosp. of Covington, LLC · filed 2008-11-14(J), (F)

The facts of our case are subsequent to the passage of La. R.S. 23:1201(J) and the separate award of attorney's fees for each violation by the trial court is legal error. ... As the language of La. R.S. 23:1201(F) makes imposition of a penalty mandatory in instances where medical benefits have not been paid timely, we hereby amend the judgment and impose the statutorily-mandated penalty of $2,000.00 for the defendants' failure to timely reimburse Ms. Russell for her insurance co-payment of $30.00.

Section 23:1201(I) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer arbitrarily and capriciously fails to pay or continues benefits, but reliance on a treating doctor's work release can defeat that claim.

Royals v. Town of Richwood · filed 2007-10-24(I)

By her fourth assignment, Ms. Royals contests the WCJ's failure to award penalties and attorney fees for Richwood's arbitrary and capricious termination of SEB. La. R.S. 23:1201 I. We find, however, that Richwood acted on the strength of Dr. Brown's work release; on the record presented, this negates any showing of a "willful and unreasonable action, without consideration and regard for the facts and circumstances presented." J.E. Merit Constructors v. Hickman, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/17/01), 776 So.2d 435. Moreover, the finding of the WCJ in favor of the employer is "virtually conclusive that its actions were reasonable and were not arbitrary and capricious." Id. It is very rarely appropriate for an appellate court to award penalties and attorney fees based on an employer's actions which the trier of fact previously found not to be arbitrary and capricious, and this case is not one of those rare exceptions. The instant claim under R.S. 23:1201 I is without merit.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees for a workers’ compensation claim that is not reasonably controverted and benefits withheld arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause.

Charles v. South Cent. Industries · filed 1995-12-06

A worker's compensation claimant is entitled to attorney fees and penalties when his claim is not reasonably controverted, and if the failure to pay benefits is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. La.R.S. 23:1201, 1201.2. The determination of whether an employer or insurer should be cast with penalties and attorney fees is essentially a question of fact and the trial court's finding shall not be disturbed on appeal absent manifest error. Fruge, 647 So.2d 561; Lemoine, 651 So.2d 444.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to timely pay medical benefits or authorize treatment, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment was beyond the employer’s control.

Frederick v. Port Aggregates, Inc. · filed 2007-10-31(F)

If medical treatment is not authorized within sixty days, the sanctions of La.R.S. 23:1201(F) will be applied. ... Insofar as PAI did not reasonably controvert Frederick’s claim, we find that the workers’ compensation judge’s imposition of a penalty pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F) was not manifestly erroneous. ... Because PAI did not timely authorize treatment, an award of attorney fees is proper under La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Subsection (I) authorizes a penalty and reasonable attorney fee when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues benefits, while subsection (J) limits the award to one reasonable attorney fee for multiple violations addressed at one merits hearing.

Jennings v. Ryan's Family Steak House · filed 2007-11-02(I) and (J)

Thus, the WCJ did not err in imposing penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(I) for arbitrarily and capriciously discontinuing benefits before further investigating the medical evidence from Ms. Jennings' other physicians.

Section (I) requires an employer or insurer that arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues compensation claims to pay a penalty and reasonable attorney fee.

Janneck v. LWCC · filed 2012-10-17(I)

Any employer or insurer who at any time discontinues payment of claims due and arising under this Chapter, when such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, shall be subject to the payment of a penalty not to exceed eight thousand dollars and a reasonable attorney fee for the prosecution and collection of such claims. ... Because the defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously in controverting Mr. Jan-neck’s claim, he was entitled to attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201(1) authorizes up to $8,000 in penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues workers’ compensation payments.

Temple v. Global Construction · filed 2013-05-23(1)

Any employer or insurer who at any time discontinues payment of claims due and arising under this Chapter, when such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, shall be subject to the payment of a penalty not to exceed eight thousand dollars and a reasonable attorney fee for the prosecution and collection of such claims. ... a court must ascertain whether the employer 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 the benefits allegedly owed. ... After review of the evidence presented, we cannot find the trial judge was manifestly erroneous in finding Global’s refusal to pay Mr. Temple’s benefit claims was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, we cannot find the trial court was manifestly erroneous in awarding the penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(1) provides penalties and attorney fees when the termination of workers’ compensation benefits is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Roy v. Schilling Distributing Co. · filed 2013-10-16(1)

Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.

Section 23:1201(I) requires an employer that arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues benefits to pay a penalty and reasonable attorney fee for collecting the claims.

Lafayette Steel Erector, Inc. v. Constance · filed 2014-04-16(I)

If an employer discontinues the payment of benefits and “such discontinuation is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, [the employer] shall be subject to the payment of a penalty . . . and a reasonable attorney fee for the prosecution and collection of such claims.” La.R.S. 23:1201(I). ... Given our affirmation of that finding, we cannot say that the WCJ committed manifest error in awarding Constance a penalty and attorney fees for Appellants‟ improper reduction of his indemnity benefits.

Section 23:1201(I) requires an insurer that arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues payment of claims to pay a penalty and attorney fees.

Simmons v. Luba Worker's Comp. · filed 2016-11-02(I)

“Any . . . insurer who at any time discontinues payment of claims . . . when such discontinuance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause” subjects itself to the payment of a penalty and attorney fees. La.R.S. 23:1201(I).

Section 23:1201(I) authorizes a penalty of up to $8,000 and reasonable attorney fees when an employer arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues benefits without probable cause, and the attorney fees are not subject to the limitation in § 23:1141.

Landry v. Lofton Security Service, Inc. · filed 2020-12-02(I)

Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(I), an employer who arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues payment of benefits, without probable cause, is subject to a penalty not to exceed $8,000 and reasonable attorney fees. Furthermore, attorney fees are not subject to the limitation set forth in La.R.S. 23:1141. ... Discontinuance of benefits based on a hypothetical job description that was not actually available was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, we find a penalty in the amount of $2,000 is appropriate.