La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1201

Section 23:1201(I) authorizes a penalty of up to $8,000 when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues benefits.

Guidroz v. Walmart Stores, Inc. · filed 2022-05-04(I)

Based on the reasoning in Cook, we find that the trial court did not err in failing to award a separate penalty under La.R.S. 23:1201(I) because there was only one action in this case, i.e., the modification of benefits.

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

Lentz v. City of New Orleans, Police Department · filed 2022-12-15(I)

With regard to the discontinuation of benefits, La. R.S. 23:1201(I) provides: ... 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 arising under this Chapter. ... In view of these legal precepts, and upon our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the WCJ erred in awarding attorney’s fees and penalties. The record demonstrates that the City failed to counter the evidence presented by Lentz and failed to provide an objective reason for reducing Lentz’s indemnity benefits. Accordingly, we find that attorney’s fees and penalties were warranted.

Section 23:1201(I) authorizes penalties up to $8,000 and reasonable attorney fees when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues benefits due under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Prevost v. City of New Orleans Fire Department · filed 2024-10-04(I)

This Court was recently tasked with determining whether the award of penalties and attorney’s fees was appropriate in a workers’ compensation case. In Lentz v. City of New Orleans, Police Dep’t, we noted that the authority for such awards emanates from the express provisions found in La. R.S. 23:1201(I), which sets forth, in pertinent part: ... 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. ... Finally, in examining the language of the statute, we held that when determining whether an employer acted arbitrarily and capriciously in a workers’ compensation matter: ... Courts must evaluate 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. Employers must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits. Stated another way, employers must possess an articulable and objective reason to deny benefits at the time it took action. ... Faced with the facts of the case sub judice—i.e., that NOFD has provided no testamentary or documentary evidence that it had a valid reason to reduce Mr. Prevost’s benefits—we cannot say that the district court was clearly wrong in assessing a penalty and awarding attorney’s fees.

Section 23:1201(I) authorizes penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer or insurer arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues compensation benefits.

Shubert v. City of New Orleans · filed 2025-03-28(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. ... In light of the lack information regarding the availability of potential jobs or further review of Mr. Shubert’s file, there was no valid reason to reduce Mr. Shubert’s SEB rate. Therefore, we cannot conclude that he WCJ erred in awarding attorney’s fees and penalties to Mr. Shubert.

Section 23:1201(I) requires an employer or insurer that arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues workers’ compensation payments to pay a penalty and reasonable attorney fees.

Patt v. Amerigas Propane, Inc. and Ndemnity Insurance Company of North America · filed 2026-04-29(I)

The applicable statute is La.R.S. 23:1201, which states in relevant part: ... 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. ... To sum up, the trial court did not manifestly err in awarding Ray penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(1) provides penalties of up to $8,000 and a reasonable attorney fee when discontinuance of benefits is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Hollingsworth v. Logging · filed 2013-02-27(1)

11sLa. R.S. 23:1201(1)5 provides for the payment of both penalties, not to exceed $8,000, and a reasonable attorney fee when the discontinuance of benefits is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Section 23:1201(I) provides for attorney fees and penalties when the discontinuation of benefits is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Roy v. Schilling Distributing Company, Inc. · filed 2013-10-16(I)

The applicable statute in this case is La.R.S. 23:1201(I), which governs the discontinuation of benefits on October 18, 2011, and which provides for attorney fees and penalties if the termination is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Section 23:1201(I) authorizes statutory penalties and attorney fees when an employer's discontinuance of benefits is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

Martin v. Doerle's Food Services, LLC and Great American Insurance Company · filed 2021-06-02(I)

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

Section 23:1201, together with § 23:1201.2, permits penalties and attorney’s fees when an insurer arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues compensation payments.

Briscoe v. Jerry's Furniture · filed 1994-04-06

Under La.R.S. 23:1201 and 23:1201.2, an insurer who arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues compensation payments may be held liable for penalties and attorney’s fees.

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

City of Jennings v. Dequeant · filed 1997-11-05

La.R.S. 23:1201 provides 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. ... Reviewing the record as a whole, we cannot say Jennings' decision to reduce Dequeant's weekly compensation was arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause. Accordingly, the workers' compensation judge's failure to award penalties and attorney's fees to Dequeant was not manifestly erroneous.

Section 23:1201(F) entitles a claimant to penalties and attorney fees when benefits are paid late or not authorized, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Clifton v. Ditto's Apparel · filed 1999-02-03(F), (F)(2)

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

Section 23:1201 authorizes penalties and attorney’s fees against an employer for an arbitrary and capricious denial of workers’ compensation benefits.

Poche v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. · filed 2001-11-09

La. R.S. 23:1201 authorizes the imposition of penalties and attorney’s fees on an employer for arbitrary and capricious denial of compensation benefits.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted or payment was prevented by conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Maddox v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. · filed 2007-12-05(F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1201(F)(2) provides for the payment of penalties and attorney fees for the failure to provide payment of benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the failure to pay results from conditions over which the employer had no control.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney’s fees when an employer arbitrarily and capriciously fails 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. La. R.S. 23:1201(F); ... Cellxion failed to pay Gasway TTD benefits even though Dr. Ramos clearly restricted him from working in any capacity pending the results of an MRI. Cellxion even refused to approve pain management for Gasway even though two doctors recommended it. We agree with the WCJ in determining that Cellxion was indeed arbitrary and capricious in its behavior. Gasway is entitled to penalties in the amount of $4,000.00.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to timely pay workers’ compensation benefits without reasonably controverting the claim.

Connor v. Family Dollar Store · filed 2010-03-26(F)

Medical benefits shall be paid timely and if not paid and not reasonably controverted, penalties and attorney fees shall result. A claim is reasonably controverted if the employer has sufficient factual and medical information to counter that presented by the claimant. ... The burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that an employer’s conduct was arbitrary and capricious in discontinuing the payment of benefits. See LSA-R.S. 23:1201(F), (I), and (J). ... After thorough review of the evidence herein, we find no error in the OWC’s determination that Family Dollar acted arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating Connor’s benefits, for which penalties and attorney’s fees accordingly were due.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and attorney’s fees when an employer or insurer fails to pay benefits without reasonably controverting the claim.

Rastegar v. Magnolia School, Inc. · filed 2010-10-12(F)

Defendant also disputes the award of penalties and attorney’s fees in this case. La. R.S. 23:1201(F) imposes a penalty for “failure to provide payment.” ... The record supports a finding that these expenses were not reasonably controverted by the employer/insurer, thus triggering the imposition of penalties and attorney’s fees.

Section 23:1201’s penalties apply when an employer’s failure to authorize necessary medical care amounts to a failure to furnish compensation benefits and is arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause.

Baker v. Phillips Van Heusen Corp. · filed 2012-04-11(F)

An employer’s failure to authorize medical care for an employee otherwise eligible to receive workers’ compensation is deemed to be the failure to furnish compensation benefits, thus triggering the penalty provisions of La. R.S. 23:1201.

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

Flores v. Angelle Apartments Co. · filed 2012-12-11(F)(2)

Under La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2), no penalties and attorney fees are owing where the employer has reasonably contested the claim for benefits. ... Considering all of these factors, we find that it was manifest error for the trier of fact to conclude that the employer did not reasonably controvert the claim for compensation. We therefore set aside the awards for penalties and attorney fees.

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

Starkey v. Livingston Parish Council · filed 2013-08-06(F)

Under the applicable statutory provisions of La. R.S. 23:1201(F), penalties and attorney fees are recoverable for failure to pay benefits unless “the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” ... Defendants had reasonable grounds to controvert Ms. Starkey’s claim for benefits beyond September 16, 2010, the date of her automobile accident. Thus, Ms. Starkey was not entitled to penalties and attorney fees for defendants’ actions in terminating her benefits or in failing to pay for her treatment by Dr. Smith.

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

Bordelon v. Key Energy Services, Inc. · filed 2014-05-07(F)

The workers’ compensation judge awarded penalties ($2,000.00) and attorney’s fees ($15,750.00), finding that Key Energy failed to reasonably controvert the claim in its denial of benefits. In this regard, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that: ... (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. ... While Key Energy suggests that the positive post-accident drug screen provided the reasonable basis for its denial, the workers’ compensation judge determined that Key Energy single-mindedly relied upon the intoxication presumption of causation without appropriately considering alternative causes. ... Simply, Key Energy had a positive drug screen and relied upon that drug screen exclusively. Given the surrounding circumstances as permissibly determined by the workers’ compensation judge, we find no manifest error in its imposition of penalties and attorney fees.

Subsection F(2) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to timely pay disability or medical benefits without reasonably controverting the claim, unless the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond its control.

Bridges v. Gaten's Adventures Unlimited, L.L.C. · filed 2015-04-02(F)(2)

An employer or insurer may be assessed with penalties and attorney fees for the failure to timely pay disability or medical benefits unless “the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” See La. R.S. 23:1201 F(2). A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual or medical information to reasonably counter evidence presented by the claimant.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for an employer’s untimely payment of workers’ compensation benefits, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment is beyond the employer’s control.

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

Section 23:1201(F)(2) requires penalties and attorney’s fees for untimely medical-benefit payments unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Payton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · filed 2016-02-17(F)(2)

This case involves a refusal to pay benefits rather than a termination of benefits previously paid. As noted by the OWC judge in reasons for judgment, the “reasonably controverted” standard applies where there has been a refusal to provide medical benefits. ... La. R.S. 23:1201 E(l) states that “medical benefits payable under this Chapter shall be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives written notice thereof....” The employer or insurer shall be assessed penalties and attorney’s fees for failure to timely pay medical benefits unless the claim “is reasonably controverted or if nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” La. R.S. 23:1201 F(2). ... After reviewing the record, we cannot say the OWC judge was manifestly erroneous in finding that Sears did not reasonably controvert claimant’s claim of a work-related accident and injury. Because there is no evidence that nonpayment of benefits was the result of conditions over which Sears had no control, we conclude that the OWC judge did not err in ordering Sears to pay $4,000 in penalties and $4,000 in attorney’s fees for failure to pay benefits.

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

Fernandez v. Hand Construction, LLC · filed 2016-05-16(F)

Under La. R.S. 23:1201, the “arbitrary) capricious or without probable cause” standard applies where there has been a discontinuance of benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(1). In a case where the employer fails to. provide benefits, as is the case with the appellants herein, the “reasonably controverted” standard applies. La. R.S. 23:1201(F); See Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 889-890. “[I]n order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.” Id., p. 9, 721 So.2d at 890.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and attorney fees when workers’ compensation benefits are not paid timely, unless the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim.

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

Failure to pay benefits in a timely manner requires the imposition of penalties and attorney fees on the employer or insurer, unless that party reasonably controverts the employee’s claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Subsection (F) authorizes penalties and reasonable attorney fees for unpaid compensation, subject to an exception when the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control; the daily penalty is capped at $2,000 per claim.

Bay v. Jefferson Parish Public Schools · filed 2017-04-26(F)

Here, the OWC awarded Bay penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), which provides in pertinent part: ... (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. ... Here, applying the $50.00 daily penalty provided by La. R.S. 23:1201(F), the $2,000.00 cap is exceeded. We also find nothing in the record to indicate that the $2,500.00 attorney’s fee is unreasonable where the case ultimately proceeded to trial on the briefs. The record in this case supports the OWC’s finding that the school board failed to establish that it reasonably controverted this claim or that there were conditions over which it had no control when it failed to pay this claim. Under the specific facts before us, we cannot conclude that the OWC’s award of penalties and attorney’s fees was manifestly erroneous.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and attorney’s fees for failing to furnish required workers’ compensation medical benefits, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control.

Jackie White v. Fuel Plus, LLC · filed 2017-10-04(F)(2)

The failure to authorize necessary medical treatment is considered a failure to furnish medical benefits, as required by La.R.S. 23:1203, and will subject the employer to penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). However, 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.” La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

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

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

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) governs the assessment of penalties and award of attorney fees for an employer’s failure to pay benefits. This provision does not apply if the employer reasonably controverts the claim or if nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Section 23:1201(F) permits statutory penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to pay benefits timely and cannot show a reasonable controversy over the claim or that nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond its control.

Frank Miller (Jonathan Miller-Deceased) v. Rayville Manufacturing · filed 2020-11-18F

Attorney fees and penalties awarded for failing to reasonably controvert a claim are statutory fees assessed against the employer or the insurer (or both). La. R.S. 23:1201 F; McCarroll v. Airport Shuttle, Inc., 00-1123 (La. 11/28/00), 773 So. 2d 694. Statutory fees are not payable in every case of successful litigation but, rather, are payable only where the employer or insurer fails to pay benefits timely and fails, at trial, to show a reasonable controversy over the claim (or to show that nonpayment is the result of conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control). Id. ... Despite Rayville’s attempt to show that Miller’s accident and eventual death were caused by cardiac arrest or suicide, we find that the evidence offered to support this theory, consisting of the testimony of one lay witness, was not sufficient to reasonably controvert the claimants’ compelling medical evidence, from Dr. Forsythe, that he died from drowning and traumatic compression of the chest, both arising from the work-related accident. On this record, the WCJ was not plainly wrong to find a violation of La. R.S. 23:1201 F.

The statute sets deadlines for paying compensation and medical benefits and permits penalties and attorney fees when benefits are not paid unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment was beyond the employer’s control.

Buggs v. Town of Bernice and Risk Management, Inc. · filed 2022-11-16(B), (E)(1), (F), (F)(2)

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. La. R.S. 23:1201(B). Medical benefits shall be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives written notice thereof. La. R.S. 23:1201(E)(1). 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 Subsection (F) 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, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base the denial of benefits. ... Reasonably controverting a claim means that the 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. ... The WCJ’s award of penalties and attorney fees based upon defendant’s failure to controvert Buggs’ claim was correct here.

Subsection (F) requires penalties and attorney fees for a failure to pay benefits unless the claim was reasonably controverted under (F)(2), while subsection (I)'s arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause standard applies when an employer discontinues payment of claims.

Ceaser v. Lake Charles Care Center · filed 2023-04-26(F), (F)(2), and (I)

The record reveals Ms. Ceaser has never received any indemnity payments. In view of this fact, we find the claim before us concerns a “failure to provide payment” under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), which necessarily encompasses the “reasonably controverted” standard of La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). The WCJ’s assessment of a penalty and attorney fees were, however, based on his use of the “arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause” standard of La.R.S. 23:1201(I), which is used when an employer “discontinues payment of claims[.]” Therefore, we find the WCJ applied the wrong legal standard in this case.

Section 23:1201(G) does not mandate penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay court costs.

Nicholas v. Raymond Laborde Correctional Center · filed 2026-06-03(G)

We find the cases relied upon by Claimant are not dispositive of the specific issue in this case. Simply put, they fail to establish La.R.S. 23:1201(G) mandates penalties and attorney fees for failure to pay court costs. Furthermore, we find no statutory or jurisprudential authority for assessing penalties and attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:1201(G) for Defendant’s failure to pay court costs to Claimant. The WCJ’s judgment assessing penalties and attorney fees is reversed.

Section 23:1201 allows penalties and attorney’s fees when an employer unreasonably fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits.

Deshautelles v. South Central Bell Telephone Co. · filed 1996-12-20

Although error was not assigned, SCB argues in its brief that penalties and attorney’s fees were not proper because they had already been denied in the 1992 judgment. The trial court awarded penalties and attorney’s fees in the 1995 judgment based Ron SCB’s unreasonable failure to pay SEBs to Mr. Deshautelles from 1992 until 1995. The awards were not based on the failure to pay SEB’s during the initial dispute over Mr. Deshautelles’ disability and the judgment rendered in 1992. La. R.S. 23:1201 allows attorney’s fees and penalties for failure to pay under such circumstances.

Section 23:1201(E) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer’s failure to provide benefits and medical expenses is arbitrary and capricious.

Langley v. Bechtel Co. · filed 1998-03-11(E)

In order to obtain attorneys’ fees and penalties, plaintiff must prove that Bechtel was arbitrary and capricious in refusing to provide benefits and medical expenses. Williams v. Hospital Service, Inc., 95-214 (La.App. 5th Cir. 9/20/95); 663 So.2d 749, 754. 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. The determination of whether penalties and attorney fees are due is within the discretion of the trial court. Williams v. Hospital Service, Inc., 663 So.2d at 754. ... Under these facts, we find that Bechtel was not arbitrary and capricious in failing to pay benefits and medical expenses. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to penalties and attorneys fees.

Under § 23:1201(F)(2), an employer that fails to pay benefits and does not reasonably controvert the claim is liable for attorney fees.

Holden v. International Paper Co. · filed 1998-10-28(F)(2)

Section 1201(F)(2) provides that an employer that does not "reasonably controvert" a claim and fails to provide payment of benefits shall be liable for attorney fees.

Subsection (F) allows penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to furnish medical benefits, but not when the claim is reasonably controverted.

Roach v. Eagle Water, Inc. · filed 1999-05-05(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for assessment of a penalty and attorney fees for the failure to furnish medical benefits. However, these sanctions do not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted.

Section 23:1201 requires penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment of benefits when the claim was not reasonably controverted, and subsection (F) sets the applicable penalty for unpaid compensation or medical benefits.

Stroud v. Nursery · filed 2001-12-28(F)

The Court held that the arbitrary and capricious standard no longer applies to actions brought under this statute and statutory penalties and attorney fees shall be awarded if employer or insurer fails to timely pay benefits due claimant pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201 unless the claim is reasonably controverted or such nonpayment results from conditions over which employer or insurer had no control. ... La.R.S. 23:1201(F) provides, in pertinent part: ... that failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section shall result in the assessment of a penalty in an amount equal to twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits or fifty dollars per calendar day, whichever is greater, for each day in which any and all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid, together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim.... ... We find that La.R.S. 23:1201(F) is applicable to the instant matter and that the workers’ compensation judge erred in ruling that the Employer’s failure to reinstate benefits after the Pierce decision was not arbitrary and capricious.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when an employee's rights to benefits were not reasonably controverted.

Carmean v. Enterprise Products Partners, L.L.P. · filed 2001-11-09

La. R.S. 23:1201 allows for the imposition of penalties and attorney’s fees when the employee’s rights to benefits were not reasonably controverted.

Section 23:1201(F) governs penalties and attorney fees for an employer's failure to provide a required benefit, with the claim-specific penalty capped at $2,000 and unavailable under § 23:1201(F)(2) when the claim was reasonably controverted; § 23:1201(I) applies to discontinuances.

Easton Pharmacy, Inc. v. Buller · filed 2011-11-02(F), (F)(2), (I)

However, in this case, it is clear that the failure to authorize the surgery was not a discontinuance of benefits. Instead, the employer failed to provide a required benefit. Thus, the penalties and attorney fees were awardable under La.R.S. 23:1201(F). This paragraph provides for the imposition of penalties and attorney fees “for failure to provide payment in accordance” with the compensation provided for in that section. Paragraph (F) establishes that a penalty awarded thereunder may be assessed: ... The above-prescribed penalty is not warranted if the claim is reasonably controverted. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). Thus, the applicable penalty was awardable under Paragraph [inF, and should have been limited to $2,000 for the claim regarding the failure to provide the fusion surgery.2 We amend the penalty award in this regard.

Section 23:1201 authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues medical benefits.

Hickerson v. SHAW SERVICES, LLC · filed 2008-02-08

In this assignment of error, Shaw Services avers that the workers' compensation judge erred in awarding penalties and attorney fees to Mr. Hickerson. The workers' compensation judge found that Shaw Services arbitrarily and capriciously discontinued Mr. Hickerson's medical benefits, and thus, awarded penalties and attorney fees to Mr. Hickerson. After a thorough review of the record, we cannot say that the workers' compensation judge erred in that finding and award. This assignment of error has no merit.

Section 23:1201 provides for penalties and attorney's fees when an employer is arbitrary and capricious in refusing to authorize necessary workers' compensation medical treatment.

Brasseaux v. Abbeville General Hosp. · filed 1998-03-18

As stated above, Brasseaux is entitled to medical treatment which is necessary to relieve her pain, even if such treatment is a "last-ditch" effort. Thus, we find that Abbeville General was arbitrary and capricious for refusing to authorize the trial spinal cord stimulator, especially in view of the fact that it continued to rely on Dr. Hurst's opinion, even in the face of Brasseaux's continued suffering and determinations by Drs. Lemoine and White that a trial of spinal cord stimulation was appropriate. We further find that Abbeville General was arbitrary and capricious by attempting to coerce Brasseaux into being treated by a physician of its own choosing, Dr. Gorin. City of Jennings Police Dept. v. Dorr, 96-244 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/26/96); 676 So.2d 1128. As a result of these findings, we award penalties of $2,000.00 and attorney's fees of $5,000.00 to Brasseaux. La.R.S. 23:1201.

Section 23:1201(F) provides for penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay workers’ compensation indemnity benefits.

Ashworth v. Administaff, Inc. · filed 2010-10-06(F)

The failure to provide payment of workers’ compensation indemnity benefits will result in an assessment of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... After reviewing the record, we find merit in this argument and award her an additional $2,000.00 in penalties based on Administaff’s failure to pay her indemnity benefits between February 12 and February 15, 2009. ... Accordingly, we find that it was error for the WCJ not to award Mrs. Ashworth $2,000.00 in penalties based on Administaff’s failure to pay these benefits. La.R.S. 23:1201(F). We amend the judgment of the WCJ to provide for this award.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties and attorney fees for failure to pay compensation or medical benefits, but subsection (F)(2) exempts a reasonably controverted claim; separate violations may support separate penalties.

Hofler v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2011-01-26(F)(2)

Louisiana R.S. 23:1201(F) states that penalties may be assessed for failure to provide payment.1 Louisiana R.S. 23:1201(F)(2) states, however, that these penalties shall not be assessed if 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 employer or insurer must have “some valid reason or evidence on which to base his denial of benefits.” ... Additionally, this Court finds the claim was not reasonably controverted and defendants cannot escape penalties on this ground because there was no valid reason or evidence on which they based their denial, of coverage of the diagnostic testing. ... Defendants also assert that the imposition of multiple penalties was assessed in error. We disagree; R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for multiple penalties for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits 13claims.

Subsection (G) imposes a penalty for failing to pay an award under a final, nonappealable judgment within thirty days and does not require the award to be for a specific sum.

Weldon v. Holiday Inn - Jennings · filed 2011-10-05(G)

Therefore, Weldon is entitled to a $3,000.00 penalty pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... We are not persuaded by Holiday Inn’s arguments that in order to award a penalty for failing to pay pursuant to a judgment, the award must be for a specific sum. Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(G) has no such requirement, and Holiday Inn has not cited any jurisprudence, nor can we find any, that reads this requirement into the statute.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) imposes penalties for failure to pay benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

Colwell v. the Summit Retirement Center · filed 2013-03-06(F)(2)

The failure to pay benefits will result in the imposition of penalties “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). We find no error in the award of penalties because Summit offered no evidence of any reasonable justification for its denial of the benefits for which penalties were imposed.

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

Colwell v. Summit Retirement Center · filed 2013-03-06(F)(2)

The failure to pay benefits will result in the imposition of penalties “unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no |ficontrol.” La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). We find no error in the award of penalties because Summit offered no evidence of any reasonable justification for its denial of the benefits for which penalties were imposed.

Section 1201(F) permits a penalty of up to $8,000.00 when a defendant fails to timely pay benefits without reasonably controverting the claim.

Ashworth v. Big Easy Foods of Louisiana, LLC · filed 2013-12-11(F)

Turning first to the alleged erroneous $2,000.00 penalty, the WCJ properly awarded this penalty under La.R.S. 23:1201(F). Section 1201(F) awards penalties of up to $8,000.00 for failure to timely pay benefits when a defendant fails to reasonably controvert a claim. At trial, Big Easy stipulated that it failed to pay indemnity benefits for the first week following Mr. Ashworth’s injury.

Section 23:1201 assesses a penalty when compensation or medical benefits payable without an order are not timely paid, but the penalty does not apply when the employer reasonably controverts the employee's right to benefits.

Montana v. City of New Orleans · filed 1996-06-05(E) (F)

Under former La.R.S. 23:1201(E) (see now La.R.S. 23:1201(F)) a penalty is assessed if compensation or medical benefits which are payable without an order are not timely paid. That rule does not apply where the employer reasonably controverts the employee's right to the benefits. Id.

Section 23:1201(B) makes the first temporary-total-disability installment due within fourteen days after the employer or insurer knows of the injury, while subsection (E) imposes a penalty for nonpayment unless the claim is reasonably controverted.

Maiden v. Crossroads of Louisiana, Inc. · filed 1996-07-24(B), (E)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201(B): ... Failure to pay shall result in a twelve percent penalty, unless the claim is "reasonably controverted."

Section 23:1201(E) imposes penalties on an employer or insurer unless the employee’s claim was reasonably controverted.

Pfister v. City of New Orleans · filed 1996-09-18(E)

Under La.R.S. 23:1201 penalties are assessed against the employer or the insurer unless the employee’s claim was reasonably controverted.

Under the version applicable at the time of injury, the penalty provision for nonpayment of “compensation” does not encompass penalties and attorney fees because the penal statute must be strictly construed.

Broussard v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co. · filed 1996-12-11(F)

Since La.R.S. 23:1201(F) is a penal statute, it must be strictly construed. Hayes v. Louisiana Risk Management, 93-1144 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/94), 635 So.2d 591, writ denied, 94-1020 (La.6/17/94), 638 So.2d 1097. We do not find that a strict construction of the term “compensation” encompasses penalties and attorney fees. Thus, we find no error in the trial court’s failure to award penalties for the failure to pay penalties and attorney fees under the prior judgment.

Section 23:1201(G) imposes a 24 percent penalty and reasonable attorney fees only when an employer fails to pay an award under a final, nonappealable judgment within 30 days after it becomes due, absent conditions beyond the employer’s control.

Silk v. Silk · filed 1997-09-24(G)

In this appeal, we consider the. express wording of the penalty statute in the light of the procedural circumstances occurring while the earlier appeal by the hwidow and child was pending in this court. We conclude that § 1201(G) subjects the employer to a 24 percent penalty and reasonable attorney fees only under circumstances where the employer fails to pay “any award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment ... within 30 days after it becomes due ... unless such nonpayment results *1177from conditions over which the employer had no control. ” Our emphasis. ... The April 1996 award to the mother, however, having been appealed in some manner by a claimant adverse to the mother, did not become a nonappealable judgment within the meaning of § 1201(G) until that appeal was decided by this court and defendants’ writ application to the supreme court was *1179denied in June 1997. Defendants’ failure to pay benefits to the mother within 30 days after expiration of the delays for suspensively appealing the April 1996 ruling is .not legally sanctionable under § 1201(G).

Subsection (E) requires the workers’ compensation insurer to pay or provide medical benefits, and payment by another insurer does not avoid penalties when those benefits remain unpaid under workers’ compensation law.

City of Jennings v. Deshotel · filed 2000-02-02(E)

The City, through its workers' compensation insurer, refused to pay or provide medical benefits as is required by La.R.S. 23:1201(E). It is of no moment that a different insurance ultimately provided the payment, that the employee had no out of pocket expenses, or that the underlying obligation for the expenses was extinguished. The evidence supports the finding that medical benefits remained unpaid under the laws of workers' compensation. Therefore, we find no error in the determination that the City failed to pay the bills bringing it under the penalty provision of La.R.S. 23:1201. Neither do we find clear error in the determination that the claim was not reasonably controverted.

Subsection (C) makes supplemental earnings benefits due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer knows of the compensable SEB claim, while subsection (F) permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment only when the claim was not reasonably controverted and the employer or insurer had notice of the claim.

Quigley v. Harbor Seafood & Oyster Bar · filed 2014-10-15(C), (F)

Under La. R.S. 23:1201(C), supplemental earnings benefits “shall become due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the compensable supplemental earnings benefits ...” ... La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides for the assessment of a penalty and reasonable attorney fees against the employer or insurer for the failure to timely commence or timely continue paying benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. ... Because claimant did not notify defendants of her claim for SEBs prior to filing her disputed claim, it cannot be said that defendants failed to comply with their obligation to pay SEBs, as contemplated by an award of penalties and attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(F). Accordingly, we find that-there was no need for the WCJ to make a . finding as to whether defendants reasonably controverted claimant’s claim for SEBs in connection with her claim for penalties and attorney’s fees, as defendants had no knowledge of any claim to reasonably controvert.

Section 23:1201(C) makes monthly supplemental earnings benefits due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer learns of the compensable benefits, while subsection (F)(2) permits penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the defendant’s control.

Jackson v. Conagra Poultry Company · filed 2007-10-31(C), (F)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(C) states: “Installment benefits payable pursuant to R.S. 23:1221(3) shall become due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the compensable supplemental earnings benefits on which date all such compensation then due shall be paid.” Failure to pay timely subjects the liable party to a penalty together with reasonable attorney fees, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions beyond the defendant’s control. La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). ... As SEB in this matter were to be paid monthly, under La.R.S. 23:1201(C), $783.96 in SEB for July were due on August 14, 2003. The same amount for August was due September 14, 2003. ... Therefore, Ms. Jackson was never owed any unpaid benefits at the times payment was due. ... Ms. Jackson is clearly not entitled to penalties and attorney fees for being paid more than she was owed, before it was due.

Section 23:1201(B) makes the first temporary-total-disability compensation payment due 14 days after the employer or insurer knows of the injury, and § 23:1201(F) imposes a penalty for untimely payment, subject to statutory limits and exceptions.

Wanetta Ivory v. Southwest Developmental Center · filed 2008-03-05(B), (F)

Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(B), the first payment was due fourteen days after Southwest had knowledge of Ivory’s injury which, according to the Employer Report of Injury/Illness form, was January 23, 2003. Given this untimely payment, we find that Southwest was properly assessed with a penalty. ... Because Ivory’s benefits were not paid until February 19, 2003, they were thirteen days late. The appropriate penalty was $50.00 for each day in which compensation remained unpaid. Accordingly, the appropriate penalty for an untimely first payment of benefits is $650.00.

Section 23:1201(E) imposes a 12-percent penalty for late payment of compensation unless the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's or insurer's control or the claim was reasonably controverted; the penalty is assessed against the party at fault.

Liga/Mortem Risk Management v. Franks · filed 2000-06-23(E)

If payment is not made in accordance with La.R.S. 23:1201, penalties will be imposed unless the employer or insurer reasonably controverted the employee’s compensation claim or if the nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer or insurer’s control. Spencer v. Gaylord Container Corp., 96-1230 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/27/97); 693 So.2d 818. The decision to impose penalties is a factual question, which will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of manifest error. Id. ... Since Franks made several formal demands on both LIGA and Ace, we cannot say that the workers’ compensation judge erred in awarding him penalties for Ace’s failure to pay the compensation owed to him.

Section 23:1201(E) permits denying penalties and attorney fees when the employer has factual and medical information to controvert the claim.

Buddin v. Conagra Poultry Co. · filed 2007-10-31(E)

However, we decline to award the penalties and attorney fees requested by claimant, finding that due to the time span between the injury and surgery ConAgra had some factual and medical information to controvert the claim. See La. R.S. 23:1201(E); Brown v. Guide Corporation, 42,141 (La.App.2d Cir.05/09/07), 956 So.2d 808; Thomas v. Casino Magic, 39,725 (La. App.2d Cir.05/11/05), 902 So.2d 1283.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties for an employer’s failure to pay required workers’ compensation medical benefits, and the duty is not avoided by the employer’s subjective belief that the employee is no longer incapacitated.

Decquir v. Acorn · filed 2009-08-12(F)

Furthermore, the statute does not require an employer’s subjective belief that an employee is physically incapacitated in order for the benefits to inure; rather, the statutory duty is imposed as a result of the employee’s work-related injury.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees for an employer’s untimely payment of workers’ compensation benefits, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from circumstances beyond the employer’s control.

Ortega v. Cantu Services, Inc. · filed 2019-10-23(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. Id. 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.” Brown v. Texas–LA Cartage, Inc., 98–1063, p. 9 (La. 12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 890. ... Penalties are assessed under La.R.S. 23:1201(F) for an employer’s failure to pay benefits as they become due. The record supports that Defendants voluntarily paid Ortega temporary total disability benefits and abruptly stopped those payments on January 24, 2018. ... We agree with Ortega’s assessment of the amount of penalty awarded. Defendants’ decision to abruptly discontinue the payment of Ortega’s benefits was not justifiable and that discontinuation of payment extended well into a year. Accordingly, we amend the WCJ judgment to raise the penalty to the amount of $8,000.00.

Section 23:1201(f) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer arbitrarily and capriciously fails to timely pay workers’ compensation benefits.

Moses v. Grambling State University · filed 2000-05-15(f)

Although Defendant is entitled to take a reasonable amount of time to determine Plaintiffs entitlement to indemnity benefits, we do not believe, however, that four months is a reasonable period of time. See La. R.S. 23:1201(f). ... We find that such action was arbitrary and capricious. The WCJ did not err in penalizing Defendant for its behavior in this regard. ... Given the WCJ's discretion and the supporting affidavit, we do not find that the WCJ erred in awarding Plaintiff's counsel $7,000 in attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(f).

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

Nolan v. Rawls Farming Co. · filed 2001-10-31

A claimant is entitled to recover penalties and attorney fees in instances where the employer fails to timely pay medical or indemnity benefits unless the claim is reasonably controverted. La.R.S. 23:1201; Durham, supra. A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer or insurer produces factual or medical information of such a nature that it reasonably counters the claimant's evidence. Id.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties and reasonable attorney fees when an employer fails to timely pay medical benefits or consent to a requested treating physician, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment was beyond the employer's or insurer's control.

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

To avoid the imposition of penalties and attorney fees, the employer and its insurer must provide factual and medical evidence to reasonably controvert a workers' compensation claim.

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties and attorney fees for untimely payment or refusal to authorize a required physician change unless the claim was reasonably controverted or the nonpayment was beyond the employer’s control, while subsection (J) limits a merits hearing to one reasonable attorney-fee award for multiple violations.

Cormier v. STATE, DEPT. OF WILDLIFE · filed 2007-11-21(F), (F)(2), and (J)

More specifically, revisions to the statutes effective on August 15, 2003, added R.S. 23:1201(I) and (J), and revised R.S. 23:1201(F) by adding a penalty of up to $2,000.00 for the failure to approve a change of physician, and by adding an $8,000.00 cap on multiple penalties emanating from the same hearing on the merits. ... Therefore, Cormier's request for a change of neurosurgeon should have been granted, and his bills paid, unless the employer reasonably controverted the claim, or the non-payment was beyond the employer's control.

Section 23:1201(I) permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer arbitrarily and capriciously discontinues benefits, while subsection (J) permits only one reasonable attorney-fee award for a merits hearing despite multiple violations.

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

La.R.S. 23:1201(1) and (J) allow for penalties and attorney fees when the discontinuance of claim payments was arbitrary and capricious.

Section 23:1201(1) requires an employer or insurer that arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues workers’ compensation payments to pay a penalty and reasonable attorney fee.

Johnson v. Bossier Parish School Board · filed 2009-01-21(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. Stated another way, such behavior arises from unrestrained exercise of the will or personal preference or lacks a predictable pattern.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees for discontinued workers’ compensation benefits only when the discontinuance is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.

White v. COUNTY MARKET · filed 2009-09-23(I)

Whether a reduction or termination of workers’ compensation benefits is without probable cause, so as to render the employer liable for attorney fees and penalties, depends primarily on the facts known by the employer at the time of the termination of benefits. ... When a reduction or termination is based on legitimate disputes as to extent or cause of the claimant’s disability, penalties and attorney fees will not be awarded. ... Given the facts known to County Market at the time Mr. White’s benefits were suspended, we cannot conclude that the termination of those benefits rose to the level of being arbitrary and capricious. ... Accordingly, we find that County Market had probable cause to terminate Mr. White’s benefits, particularly given the facts and information available to it at that time. Consequently, the decision of County Market to do so did not rise to the level of being arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, we reverse the WCJ’s award of penalties, attorney fees and court costs to be assessed against County Market.

Section 23:1201(1) authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer arbitrarily and capriciously terminates workers’ compensation benefits.

Ward v. Iberia Medical Center · filed 2009-11-10(1)

In these assignments of error, Iberia Medical asserts that the WCJ erred in concluding that it was arbitrary and capricious and in awarding Ms. Ward penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(1) based on the termination of her benefits. Specifically, Iberia Medical asserts that it acted pursuant to medical opinions that “[Ms.] Ward had misrepresented her physical and medical condition and was capable of returning to work prior to [the date it ceased paying benefits] and there was no medical opinion or testimony that [Ms.] Ward was not capable of returning to work after that date.” ... In making this argument, Iberia Medical ignores the fact that the medical opinions relied upon to terminate Ms. Ward’s benefits were based on its own surveillance video and not any medical evaluation. Additionally, in considering Iberia Medical’s attitude toward Ms. Ward’s claim from the beginning, we note that she was never paid disability benefits for the week of February 6 through 10, 2006, and Iberia Medical instituted surveillance activities less than one month after the accident without any evidence to suggest Ms. Ward did not sustain a work-related injury. In other words, Iberia Medical seems to have immediately begun a campaign to terminate Ms. Ward’s benefits without any basis for such a campaign. We find no merit in this assignment of error.

Section 23:1201(1) supports penalties and attorney fees when an employer arbitrarily and capriciously terminates workers’ compensation benefits without a basis.

IBERIA MEDICAL CENTER v. Ward · filed 2009-11-10(1)

In these assignments of error, Iberia Medical asserts that the WCJ erred in concluding that it was arbitrary and capricious and in awarding Ms. Ward penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(1) based on the termination of her benefits. ... In making this argument, Iberia Medical ignores the fact that the medical opinions relied upon to terminate Ms. Ward’s benefits were based on its own surveillance video and not any medical evaluation. Additionally, in considering Iberia Medical’s attitude toward Ms. Ward’s claim from the beginning, we note that she was never paid disability benefits for the week of February 6 through 10, 2006, and Iberia Medical instituted surveillance activities less than one month after the accident without any evidence to suggest Ms. Ward did not sustain a work-related injury. In other words, Iberia Medical seems to have immediately begun a campaign to terminate Ms. Ward’s benefits without any basis for such a campaign. We find no merit in this assignment of error.

Section 23:1201(E) does not warrant penalties and attorney fees when the employer has factual and medical information sufficient to controvert the claim.

Buddin v. Conagra Poultry Co. · filed 2007-10-31(E)

However, we decline to award the penalties and attorney fees requested by claimant, finding that due to the time span between the injury and surgery ConAgra had some factual and medical information to controvert the claim. See La. R.S. 23:1201(E); Brown v. Guide Corporation, 42,141 (La.App.2d Cir.05/09/07), 956 So.2d 808; Thomas v. Casino Magic, 39,725 (La. App.2d Cir.05/11/05), 902 So.2d 1283.

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties, subject to statutory limits, and reasonable attorney fees when an employer fails to pay compensation or medical benefits as required or fails to consent to a required treating-physician selection or change.

McGee v. BRAND SERVICES, INC. · filed 2011-04-18(F)

A claimant’s entitlement to penalties and attorney’s fees is controlled by La. R.S. 23:1201 F, which provides in relevant part: ... Based on the evidence of record, we cannot say that the hearing officer was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in imposing statutory penalties and attorney’s fees.

The sixty-day payment window in § 23:1201(E) applies to medical benefits, while § 23:1201(F) separately authorizes penalties for failing to consent to an employee’s selection of a treating physician.

Jardneaux v. Guernsey Holdings Sdi Tx Holdings Co, LLC · filed 2026-05-13(E)(1), (F)

Indeed, our reading of La.R.S. 23:1201(E) shows that it only mentions “medical benefits” when it imposes a payment window of sixty days and makes no such reference to the selection of a treating physician. Besides, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) further recognizes this distinction when it states that “failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section or failure to consent to the employee’s request to select a treating physician or change physicians . . . shall result in the assessment of a penalty . . . together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim[.]” The specific use of the disjunctive word “or” in La.R.S. 23:1201(F) clearly indicates a distinction between medical payments and the employee’s right to choose a physician.

Section 23:1201(G) imposes penalties and attorney fees for unpaid final awards, with the statutory scheme directed at employers and their insurers.

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

While La.R.S. 23:1201(G) does apply to "any award," it further provides that an "employer" is not responsible for the penalties when nonpayment was due to something the employer had no control over. Clearly, the statute, when read as a whole, was intended to apply to nonpayment of a judgment by employers and their insurers. Further evidence is found in the fact that La.R.S. 23:1201(G) also provides that amounts paid as penalties and attorney fees pursuant to the statute cannot be used to determine workers' compensation premiums. This is because the scheme of penalties and attorney fees in the workers' compensation arena are directed at employers and their insurers. Other means were available to enforce the judgment.

Subsection (F) subjects an employer or insurer to penalties and attorney fees for failing to authorize necessary medical treatment unless the claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment was beyond its control.

Sevin v. Chevrolet · filed 2009-04-30(F)

The failure to authorize a medical procedure for an employee otherwise eligible to receive workers’ compensation is deemed to be the failure to furnish compensation benefits, thereby subjecting the employer to an assessment of attorney fees and penalties, unless the claim is reasonably controverted or such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. ... Therefore, we find that Ms. Sevin’s claim for additional medical benefits was not reasonably controverted and that the actions of the adjuster in handling Ms. Sevin’s claim warrant the assessment of penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201 F. ... Since assessment of the penalty is premised on the adjuster’s failure to authorize Dr. Rowland’s treatment, we find Ms. Sevin is entitled to the amount of $2,000 as an award of penalties. We further find that the sum of $2,000 is a reasonable amount to award in attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) permits a penalty when an employer or insurer fails to reasonably controvert and timely pay medically necessary workers’ compensation benefits.

Whatley v. NABORS DRILLING USA, LP · filed 2009-11-12(F)

The WCJ found that Nabors did not reasonably controvert the medical treatment recommended by Dr. Berliner, and assessed penalties |17totaling $8,000 pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F). ... We cannot conclude that the WCJ abused his discretion in assessing an $8,000 penalty in this instance.

Subsection (F) authorizes penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay medical treatment or consent to a treating-physician choice, while subsection (F)(2) exempts a reasonably controverted claim; the court awarded penalties for refusing the claimant's initial evaluation.

Hebert v. the Fresh Market, Inc. · filed 2019-09-18(F), (F)(2)

Statutory penalties and attorney’s fees are authorized by La. R.S. 23:1201(F) when an employer fails to provide payment for an employee’s medical treatment or fails to consent to an employee’s request to select a treating physician. However, these penalties shall not apply if a claim is reasonably controverted. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2).

Subsection (F) permits penalties and attorney fees for an employer’s refusal to authorize reasonable and necessary medical treatment or an employee’s physician choice when the claim is not reasonably controverted; the court reversed denial of penalties for refusing the claimant’s choice-of-physician request.

Newman v. Concordia Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Lwcc · filed 2025-02-05(F)

We, therefore, reverse the WCJ’s judgment denying Plaintiff’s request for penalties and attorney fees.

Section 23:1201(F) provides penalties and attorney fees when an employer fails to pay a workers' compensation claim and does not reasonably controvert it; reasonable controversion requires a valid reason or evidence supporting the denial, such as a non-frivolous legal dispute or countervailing factual or medical information.

James v. Express Marketing, Inc. · filed 2007-12-05(F)

While La. R.S. 23:1201(F) does provides for penalties and attorney fees, it "shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted. . . ." A claim for workers' compensation is reasonably controverted if the employer has some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits. Thus, to determine whether the claimant's right to benefits has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer engaged in a non-frivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed. ... Nothing in the record supports Express' belief that this claim was reasonably controverted, nor does it reflect that a bona fide dispute existed. Accordingly, we reverse the WCJ's failure to award penalties and attorneys fees. We assess $2,000.00 in penalties and award $2,000.00 in attorney's fees.

Subsection H requires an employer or insurer that wants to stop workers' compensation benefits for any reason to notify the OWC, in the manner prescribed by the director's rules, that payments have been suspended.

Boykin v. Plescia · filed 2008-02-13(H)

La. R.S. 23:1201 H provides that in the event the employer or the insurer wants to discontinue the payment of benefits for any cause, the party shall notify the OWC in the manner prescribed by the rules of the director that payments have been suspended.

Section 23:1201(B) makes the first temporary-total-disability payment due fourteen days after the employer or insurer knows of the injury, and § 23:1201(F) imposes a daily penalty for late payment unless an exception applies.

Ivory v. Southwest Developmental Center · filed 2008-03-05(B), (F)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(A) provides: "Payments of compensation under this Chapter shall be paid as near as may be possible, at the same time and place as wages were payable to the employee before the accident[.]" Pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(B), "[t]he first installment of compensation payable for temporary total disability . . . shall become due on the fourteenth day after the employer or insurer has knowledge of the injury . . ., on which date all such compensation then due shall be paid." ... Because Ivory's benefits were not paid until February 19, 2003, they were thirteen days late. The appropriate penalty was $50.00 for each day in which compensation remained unpaid. Accordingly, the appropriate penalty for an untimely first payment of benefits is $650.00.

Section 23:1201(A)(1) requires indemnity benefits to be paid as nearly as possible at the same time and place as wages, while subsection (I), rather than subsection (G), governs discontinuance of currently due benefits and permits penalties up to $8,000 for multiple violations.

Lopez v. Town of Zwolle · filed 2011-10-05(A)(1), (G), (I)

Payments of compensation under this Chapter shall be paid as near as may be possible, at the same time and place as wages were payable to the employee before the accident; however, when the employee is not living at the place where the wages were paid, or is absent therefrom, such payments shall be made by mail, upon the employee giving to the employer a sufficient mailing address.

Section 23:1201(F) permits a separate penalty for each distinct late or unpaid payment claim, up to $2,000 per claim and $8,000 overall, with the employer required to explain the late or nonpayment once the claimant proves multiple claims.

Normand v. Dresser Industries, Inc. · filed 2011-11-09(F)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides that an employer‟s “[f]ailure to provide payment in accordance with this Section” shall result in assessment of a penalty of up to $2,000.00 for any claim up to a maximum of $8,000.00 regardless of the number of penalties imposed. ... Once Normand provided clear evidence that he had made multiple requests to Dresser to reimburse him for separately incurred medical travel expenses and that Dresser had either failed to pay or made late payment of those expenses, he met his burden of proving that he was entitled to multiple penalties up to the maximum allowed by the statute. The burden should have shifted to Dresser to prove why each of those requests were either paid late or not paid, including whether those late or non-payments were due to a single clerical error, such as was the case in Ducote, 980 So.2d 843. ... Accordingly, we award Normand an additional $2,000.00 penalty under La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section (F) mandates a penalty and reasonable attorney’s fees when an employer fails to timely pay workers’ compensation benefits required under Section 23:1201(A) through (E), without requiring arbitrary or capricious conduct.

Griffin v. Interim LSU Public Hospital · filed 2012-07-11(F)

This provision penalizes an employer for failing to timely pay an injured worker the benefits due to him. Unlike La. R.S. 23:1201(1), which applies to the discontinuance of benefits, this section does not require a finding that the employer’s conduct be arbitrary or capricious. When an employer fails to pay in accordance with the requirements of La. R.S. 23:1201(A) through (E), Section (F) of the statute mandates an award of a penalty and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Section 23:1201(F) permits a single penalty for one failure to pay compensation benefits, rather than a separate penalty for each week the benefits remain unpaid.

Millender v. Basf Corp. · filed 2014-12-23(F)

The WCJ assessed one penalty because she determined that the delayed indemnity checks were due to one reason, the clerical error. ... Thus, we find that the WCJ did not abuse her discretion in awarding a single penalty assessment for the approximately six weeks of missed indemnity payments, and as such, we affirm the $2000 penalty assessed against the defendants.

Section 23:1201(E) imposes a 12 percent penalty for untimely workers' compensation payments unless nonpayment was beyond the employer's control or the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted.

Mayo v. CASCO Const. Co., Inc. · filed 1998-04-08(E)

"The employer or its insurer must pay benefits within 14 days of notice of the injury and loss; failure to pay timely subjects the liable party to a penalty of 12 percent, "unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control" or "the employee's right to such benefits has been reasonably controverted by the employer or his insurer." La. R.S. 23:1201 E; ... Based upon the record, the hearing officer could conclude that not only were there factual disputes, but that CASCO's refusal to pay benefits is based upon a substantial bona fide factual contention that Mayo had forfeited his claim for benefits. Therefore, failure to pay the claim in light of the facts would not constitute arbitrary or capricious conduct. ... We find that CASCO was not arbitrary and capricious in its failure to pay worker's compensation benefits or medical benefits in connection with Mayo's worker's compensation claims, where Mayo made false statements on the second injury fund questionnaire.

Section 23:1201(G) permits only one penalty and attorney-fee award for the untimely payment of a single underlying judgment, even if the judgment remains underpaid after that award.

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

That judgment was not timely paid in full. That failure to pay resulted in a maximum penalty of $3,000.00 and subjected LUBA to $3,500.00 in attorney fees. ... Regardless of whether LUBA consented to and paid the penalty and attorney fee in May 2011, Mr. Olivier would still only be entitled to an award of one penalty and attorney fees pursuant to the statute, in addition to the remaining amount ultimately determined to be due on the underlying judgment.

Subsection (F) imposes a penalty on unpaid compensation or medical benefits under a final, nonappealable judgment after a thirty-day grace period, subject to its exceptions and statutory cap.

Briscoe v. Jerry's Furniture Mart, Inc. · filed 1996-06-19(F)

Our April 6th judgment became final on May 6,1994. Section 1201(F)’s thirty-day grace period ended on June 5, 1994. Jerry’s did not appeal and we have already refuted the company’s reason (ie. Dr. LaFleur’s IME findings) for failing to pay Briscoe continuing TTD benefits; therefore, we find that the OWC erred in not assessing penalties under La.R.S. 23:1201(F). The incontrovertible fact is that from June 1994 until March 1995, Jerry’s refused to pay the TTD benefits ordered by our judgment. See Meche v. Foremost Management Corp., 95-238 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/4/95); 663 So.2d 325. We now grant Briscoe’s request for a $3,000.00 penalty under La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) imposes statutory penalties when compensation or medical benefits under a final, nonappealable judgment remain unpaid after the thirty-day period, with "nonappealable" meaning all suspensive and devolutive appeal delays have run.

Gallien v. Winn-Dixie · filed 1996-12-11(F)

In Noveh v. Broadway, Inc., 94-2306, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/23/95); 657 So.2d 687, 689, writ denied, 95-1890 (La.11/13/95); 662 So.2d 468, the court, in interpreting La.R.S. 23:1201(F), found that the term "nonappealable" meant that the judgment could "no longer be appealed, i.e. all of the delays for the taking of an appeal, suspensive or devolutive, have run." In the case sub judice, the hearing officer's decision became final on November 8, 1995. The thirty day delay period provided in La.R.S. 23:1201(F) ended on December 7, 1995. Since Winn-Dixie failed to comply within the delay, we find that the hearing officer's award of penalties and attorney's fees reasonable.

Section 23:1201(F) treats a claim as a specific demand for particular benefits, permits separate penalties for separate denied claims, and gives the workers' compensation judge discretion in assessing penalties.

Mitchell v. Brown Builders, Inc. · filed 2001-08-22(F)

In Harvey v. BE&K Construction, 34,057 (La.App.2d Cir.11/15/00), 772 So.2d 949, writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/9/01), 786 So.2d 732, this court discussed the definition of "claim" under La. R.S. 23:1201 and interpreted it to mean a specific demand for particular benefits rather than a general demand for benefits under the compensation laws. We stated that to conclude otherwise would dilute the deterrent effect of these statutory provisions which are not intended to make the worker "whole" but rather to discourage specific conduct on the part of the employer. Under this rationale, this court concluded that more than one penalty may be appropriate in a case if more than one claim has been denied. See also LeJeune v. Trend Services, 96-550 (La.App. 3d Cir.6/4/97), 699 So.2d 95; Dubois v. Louisiana Forest Industries, Inc., 98-895 (La.App. 3d Cir.12/9/98), 722 So.2d 409, writ denied, 99-0049 (La.2/26/99), 738 So.2d 586. ... The WCJ is given great discretion in finding that penalties are due. This discretion will not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Ward v. Phoenix Operating Company, supra. ... The WCJ obviously acted within her discretion in choosing not to award a separate $2,000.00 penalty for nonpayment of medical expenses for treatment of the plaintiffs back. We find that the WCJ did not abuse her discretion in assessing penalties in this case. The plaintiffs demand in this regard is denied.

Section 23:1201 allows a $50 daily penalty, capped at $2,000, for unpaid compensation or medical benefits and supports a separate penalty for unreasonable delay in authorizing surgery.

Roullier v. Cypress Healthcare Management Region IV · filed 2012-11-02

OWC awarded two penalties of $2,000.00 against Cypress pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201, which allows a penalty of $50.00 per calendar day for each day in which any and all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid, but this penalty shall not exceed $2,000.00, which accounts for forty | Rdays. Since Cypress terminated benefits on July 1, 2010, but Ms. Roullier’s increased degenerative disc disease is still present, the $2,000.00 limit has been easily met for the termination of medical benefits. As the authorization for surgery was unreasonably delayed for a year, the other $2,000.00 penalty is also warranted.

Section 23:1201(F) caps the total penalties imposed at a merits hearing, regardless of the number of penalties, at $8,000.

Mouton v. Walgreen Company · filed 2008-04-02(F)

Our attention now turns to whether the workers’ compensation judge violated the penalty cap set forth in La.R.S. 23:1201(F). Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F) provides that “[t]he maximum amount of penalties which may be imposed at a hearing on the merits regardless of the number of penalties which might be imposed under this Section is eight thousand dollars.” (Emphasis added). Here, the workers’ compensation judge imposed a $4,000.00 penalty for Walgreens’ failure to pay medical and mileage benefits and a twelve percent penalty on all weekly compensation benefits due effective April 6, 2004. Because these combined penalties exceed the maximum amount allowed under the statute, we amend the total penalty award to $8,000.00.

Section 23:1201(F) caps the total penalties imposed at a hearing on the merits, regardless of the number of penalties, at $8,000.

Burkett v. Lfi Fort Pierce, Inc. · filed 2011-05-04(F)

However, Defendant’s correctly argue that the award of penalties violates the penalty cap of La.R.S. 23:1201(F) which provides that “[t]he maximum amount of penalties which may be imposed at a hearing on the merits regardless of the number of penalties which might be imposed under this Section is eight thousand dollars.” Because the combined penalties exceed the maximum amount allowed under the statute, we amend the total penalty award to eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00).

Section 23:1201(F) applies the penalty provision in effect when benefits are withheld, and caps the total penalties for multiple violations at $8,000.

Senegal v. Esis, Inc. · filed 2022-11-16(F)

Here, Mr. Senegal’s right to penalties did not vest upon his being injured in 1997; it vested upon the statutory violations by Kerrville and Pacific. It is undisputed that these statutory violations occurred between 2012 and 2019. And during this period of time, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) limited the maximum amount of penalties available to Mr. Senegal to $8,000.00. Thus, the WCJ did not err in its application of La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) caps the total penalties imposed at a hearing on the merits at $8,000, regardless of the number of penalties assessed.

Mouton v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2008-04-02(F)

Our attention now turns to whether the workers' compensation judge violated the penalty cap set forth in La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... Because these combined penalties exceed the maximum amount allowed under the statute, we amend the total penalty award to $8,000.00.

Section 23:1201(F)’s $8,000 aggregate cap applies to penalties imposed under subsection (F), not to penalties imposed separately under subsection (G).

Rivers v. Bo Ezernack Hauling Contractor, Inc. · filed 2010-03-10(F), (G)

Subsection F does not limit penalties under all subsections of La. R.S. 23:1201 to an aggregate of $8,000.00.

The combined penalties imposed under Subsections (F) and (I) of § 23:1201 cannot exceed $8,000 at a merits hearing because “Section” refers to the entire statute.

Wilson v. Glazer's Distributors of Louisiana, Inc. · filed 2016-01-27(F) and (I)

La. R.S. 2S:1201(F) provides in part: “The maximum amount of penalties which may be imposed at .a; hearing on the merits regardless of the number of penalties which might be imposed under this Section is eight thousand dollars.” We read “Section” to refer to the entirety of La. R.S. 23:1201. La, R.S. 23:1201(F)(2), (3), (4), and (5) employ “Subsection” clearly to refer to Subsection (F). Therefore, “Section” must generally refer to La. R.S. 23:1201. See Hawkins v. Redmon, 09-2418 (La.7/6/10), 42 So.3d 360, 366 (finding,as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the legislature’s use of different terms in the same sentence- signifies that the terms have different meanings). Accordingly, we conclude that the amount of penalties imposed under La. R.S. 23:1201, whether under Subsection (F) or (I), or both, cannot exceed $8,000.00. As a result, the OWC erred as a matter of law by imposing $16,000.00 in penalties under-La. R.S. 23:1201(F) and (I). We therefore amend the judgment to reduce the ampunt of penalties. from $16,000.00 to $8,000.00. Additionally, we find no error in the award of $8,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

Section 23:1201 bars penalties when the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the employee’s right to benefits.

Burlin v. C.D. Montz & Co. · filed 1998-01-14

La. R.S. 23:1201 provided that “Penalties are not to be assessed when the employee’s right to such benefits has been reasonably controverted by the employer or insurer.” Kortz, supra at 467.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties for nonpayment or untimely payment of benefits, while Section 23:1201(I) permits up to an $8,000 penalty for an arbitrary and capricious discontinuation of benefits.

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

Under the facts of this case, we find that the discontinuation of wage benefits should have been penalized under La. R.S. 23:1201(1), as explained below, but that the failure to pay for the new treatment by Dr. Ferrell was a non-payment properly penalized by the trial court under La.R.S. 23:1201(F). We further find that the lengthy and complete discontinuation of wage benefits under La.R.S. 23:1201(1) for a year should have been penalized at the $8,000.00 maximum provided for under Section (I).

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes penalties for failing to provide payment as required or withholding required consent to select or change a treating physician, and the court found the record did not show such a failure.

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

The language in La.R.S. 23:1201(F) is different in addressing penalties than when it addressed attorney’s fees. ... Further, there is no evidence in the record of how weekly benefits versus monthly benefits constitutes “[f]ail-ure to provide payment in accordance with” La.R.S. 23:1201(F). ... Therefore, based on the record, we affirm the WCJ’s decision not penalize Dillard’s for its conduct in this case.

Section 23:1201(I) supports a penalty for an arbitrary and capricious termination of benefits, and § 23:1201(F) permits a penalty of up to $8,000 for failure to timely pay benefits when the claim was not reasonably controverted.

Ashworth v. Big Easy Foods of Louisiana, Inc. · filed 2013-12-11(I) (F)

Instead, he clearly found that Mr. Ashworth proved that the termination of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. See La.R.S. 23:1201(I). ... The WCJ properly awarded this penalty under La.R.S. 23:1201(F). Section 1201(F) awards penalties of up to $8,000.00 for failure to timely pay benefits when a defendant fails to reasonably controvert a claim. At trial, Big Easy stipulated that it failed to pay indemnity benefits for the first week following Mr. Ashworth’s injury. Since Big Easy failed to reasonably controvert Mr. Ashworth’s claim, he is entitled to a $2,000.00 penalty for its failure to pay the first week of benefits.

Subsection F(2) excuses penalties only when the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer’s control; subsection I permits a penalty for arbitrarily or capriciously discontinuing benefits, and an employer relying on a physician’s opinion still has a continuing duty to investigate.

Davis v. Boise Cascade Co. · filed 2014-10-01(F)(2), (I)

Boise argues that it reasonably controverted the claim based Upon the wording of the statute and that its reasonableness is evidenced by the fact that Mr. Davis himself offered alternative calculations. ... The decision to impose penalties and attorney fees is essentially a factual issue subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. ... Given the facts surrounding Boise’s erroneous calculation, and considering the standard of review to be applied by this court, we find *338that a reasonable factual basis exists for the WCJ’s penalty award for the improper calculation of AWW; thus, this award is affirmed. ... While we agree that an employer’s decision to terminate benefits based upon a physician’s opinion that the claimant can return to work may preclude the imposition of a penalty for such termination, this does not end the inquiry. Rather, an “employer has a continuing duty to gather factual and/or medical information in its investigation of the employee’s workers’ compensation claim.” ... “An employer avoids the imposition of penalties and attorney!] fees by satisfying its continuing obligation to investigate, assemble, and assess factual information prior to it denying benefits.” ... Based upon these facts, we find that a reasonable factual basis exists for the WCJ’s penalty award for Boise’s discontinuance of TTD.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties when an employer fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits without reasonably controverting the claim, but an employer is not liable when it has sufficient factual or medical information to reasonably counter the claimant’s evidence.

Rixner v. East Jefferson General Hospital · filed 2015-09-23(F)

When an employer fails to pay workers’ compensation benefits, penalties may be assessed if the employer did not reasonably controvert the claim. La. R.S. 23:1201. 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 factual and medical information EJGH possessed, EJGH had artic-ulable and objective reason to deny benefits. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court erred in imposing -penalties against EJGH pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), and we reverse that portion of the judgment.

Section 23:1201 authorizes penalties for an employer or workers’ compensation administrator’s unreasonable failure to pay indemnity benefits, authorize recommended medical treatment, or consent to the employee’s choice of treating physician.

Marshall v. Toyota · filed 2015-10-07

Turning to the question of penalties and attorney fees, we find that the record is devoid of any evidence showing that Courvelle Toyota and/or Risk Management made any effort to reasonably controvert this claim, other than by sending Mr. Marshall to Dr. Gidman on January 2, 2014. ... For the foregoing reasons, we award penalties of $2,000.00 based on Courvelle’s failure to pay indemnity benefits; $2,000.00 based on its failure to authorize the medical treatment recommended by Dr. Bozzelle; $2,000.00 based on its failure to authorize follow-up care and treatment by Dr. Bozzelle; and $2,000.00 based on its failure to consent to Mr. Marshall’s request to select Dr. Sledge as his [^treating orthopedic surgeon. La.R.S. 23:1201.

Subsection (F) authorizes penalties against an insurer for failing to pay compensable workers’ compensation medical expenses.

Lafayette Bone & Joint Clinic(charles Morris) v. Louisiana United Business Sif · filed 2015-10-21(F)

We award $2,000.00 in penalties in favor of Lafayette Bone and Joint Clinic and Louis C. Blanda MD and against LUBA, in accordance with La.R.S. 23:1201(F).

Section 23:1201(F) requires penalties for failure to make payments required by the workers’ compensation law, unless the employer reasonably controverts the claim, and caps total penalties at $8,000 at a merits hearing.

Tolley v. James Construction Group, LLC · filed 2016-09-28(F)

La. R.S. 23:1201(F) provides that penalties will be assessed for “failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section.” ... Therefore, for JCG’s failure to reimburse Mr. Tolley within sixty days, a penalty should be assessed.9 As stated above, on remand, the workers’ compensation court shall assess penalties accordingly.

Section 23:1201(F)(2) does not apply when a claim is reasonably controverted or nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer’s or insurer’s control; an erroneous legal interpretation may warrant penalties and attorney fees.

Shreve v. Bio-Lab, Inc. · filed 2024-12-11(F)(2)

The penalties for failure to make timely payments of compensation and/or medical expenses are set forth in La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2), which provides, in pertinent part (emphasis added): ... (2) This Subsection shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. ... 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.” ... Bio-Lab chose to test their arguments relating to prescription and causation in the court below to challenge Mr. Shreve’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. The WCJ rejected those arguments, and we have affirmed his rulings. “Reliance on an erroneous interpretation of a law subjects the employer to penalties and attorney fees.” Smith, 354 So.3d at 144. Thus, we find no error in the WCJ’s determination that penalties and attorney fees were warranted in this matter.

Section 23:1201(E) permits penalties for failure to pay workers' compensation benefits unless the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted.

Spurrell v. Ivey · filed 1994-01-25(E)

The employer or insurer is also liable for penalties for failure to pay unless, among other things, the employee's right to benefits has been "reasonably controverted" by the employer or insurer. La.R.S. 23:1201 E. ... Further, it is clear that Great American's decision to terminate benefits in November 1987 was supported by adequate evidence at the time, and corroborated by subsequent medical reports. The court was not plainly wrong to deny penalties and attorney fees. La.R.S. 23:1201 E, 1201.2.

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

Stutes v. Koch Services, Inc. · filed 1994-12-07

An employer is liable for statutory penalties for withholding benefits without evidence to "reasonably controvert" the employee's right to compensation and medical benefits. ... We find based on the medical evidence regarding Mr. Stutes's condition that from January, 1993, through July, 1993, the causation of his occupational disease was not reasonably controverted. ... Therefore, Koch Services is liable for statutory penalties for this seven-month time period.

Subsection (E) permits a penalty when an insurer's repeated benefit miscalculations and failure to use available wage information make the nonpayment more than a simple mistake.

Stegall v. J & J EXTERMINATING · filed 1995-03-01(E)

Generally, an insurer will not be penalized for a simple miscalculation of benefits; however, penalties and attorney's fees have been imposed where the insurer gathers incomplete data in preparing the claim or makes no attempt to correct an error that was pointed out to it. ... In the instant case, the insurer calculated the claimant's benefits three (3) times, with each calculation resulting in a decrease or a suspension of benefits. The adjustor handling the claim admitted that on one occasion Stegall's benefits were decreased before he received any new information about Stegall's wages.

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

Lucius v. HB Zachry Co. · filed 1996-05-08

The employer or insurer is liable for statutory penalties for withholding benefits without evidence to "reasonably controvert" the employee's right to compensation and medical benefits. ... We find that the hearing officer committed error in failing to award penalties and attorney's fees based on defendants' arbitrary and capricious denial of compensation and medical benefits. Penalties are awarded in the amount of 12% of the unpaid benefits.

Sections 23:1201(C) and (E) require a penalty inquiry into whether compensation was timely paid and whether the employer reasonably controverted the claim; no penalty is due when the employer had a reasonable factual and medical basis for nonpayment or lacked control over the delay.

Washington v. Lyons Specialty Co. · filed 1996-11-08(C) and (E)

The Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act was significantly amended in 1983. Following these amendments, the "arbitrary and capricious" standard continues to apply to attorney's fee awards under La.R.S. 23:1201.2. However, the "arbitrary and capricious" standard no longer applies to an award of penalties, which is now governed by La.R.S. 23:1201.[5] ... The assessment of penalties is now determined by inquiring whether the employer or its insurer has "reasonably controverted" the compensation claim. La.R.S. 23:1201(E); Henderson, 667 So.2d at 1099; Gentile, 665 So.2d at 431; Johnson, 636 So.2d at 916. To determine if a claim has been "reasonably controverted," the facts, medical and otherwise, known to the employer or his insurer must be examined. Given these facts, if the employer or insurer had a reasonable basis to believe that medical expenses and compensation benefits were not due the employee, an award of penalties is inappropriate. Stated differently, penalties are not appropriate if the employer or his insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant. Gentile, 665 So.2d at 431; Johnson, 636 So.2d at 916; Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., 560 So.2d 902, 906 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 567 So.2d 614 (La. 1990). Additionally, statutory penalties are not owed if the non-payment resulted from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control. La.R.S. 23:1201(E).

Subsection (F) authorizes a maximum $2,000 penalty when workers’ compensation benefits are withheld arbitrarily, capriciously, or without reasonable cause.

Broussard v. Dacon Corp. · filed 1997-04-02(F)

We conclude that Dacon’s failure to pay benefits, without any investigation, and without anything more than a speculative basis for withholding benefits, was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. We, therefore, find that penalties and attorney’s fees are appropriate in this case. ... Under La.R.S. 23:1201(F), Dacon should pay the maximum penalty of $2,000.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a workers' compensation claim and its failure to pay benefits is arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause.

Fontenot v. JK Richard Trucking · filed 1997-06-04

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.

Subsection (F) imposes penalties on employers or insurers that fail to pay workers' compensation claims as required, unless the claim was reasonably controverted or nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond their control; the penalties are discretionary and become due only when awarded.

Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers · filed 1997-07-01(F)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), penalties against employers or their insurers for the failure to pay claims in accordance with the statute are equal to "twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits or fifty dollars per calendar day, whichever is greater," unless the claim was "reasonably controverted or [the] nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control." ... Because awards of penalties and attorney's fees are not automatic in the worker's compensation setting, but rather rest within the discretion of the hearing officer, they come due, if at all, only on the date of their award by the officer; thus, such awards may not earn interest until after that date.

Section 23:1201(F) applies when an employer fails to provide payment of a claim, not when it arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinues payment of a claim.

City of Eunice v. Credeur · filed 2000-01-28(F)

The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, erred in awarding a penalty under La.R.S. 23:1201(F) as the City of Eunice did not fail to provide payment of a claim but arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause discontinued payment of a claim. Therefore, La.R.S. 23:1201(F) is inapplicable.

Section 23:1201(F) permits penalties when an employer fails to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim and does not timely pay benefits that are owed.

Lormand v. Rossclaire Construction · filed 2001-12-12(F)

A claimant is entitled to an award of penalties when a claim has not been reasonably controverted, and when defendant’s failure to pay is found to be arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause, attorney fees shall be awarded. La. R.S. 23:1201(F) and La.R.S. 23:1201.2. ... However, upon closer review, it is evident that the workers’ compensation judge awarded penalties and attorney fees for Rossclaire’s failure to pay retroactive TTD after it received the report of Dr. Mayeux, an independent medical examiner appointed by the workers’ compensation judge, indicating that Lormand was unable to work as of at least November 11, 1998. Under these circumstances, we find the award of penalties and attorney fees for Rossclaire’s failure to timely pay TTD benefits was proper. This assignment has no merit.

The version of § 23:1201F then in effect imposed a penalty for failure to pay compensation or medical benefits, but its strict terms did not cover unpaid penalties or attorney fees.

Springer v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 2001-12-28(F) (now redesignated (G))

Similarly, we find that a strict construction of the term “compensation or medical benefits” cannot encompass penalties and attorney fees. Therefore, Ms. Springer is entitled to a penalty award only for K-Mart’s failure to pay compensation benefits, and not for its failure to pay previously ordered penalties.

Subsection (F) permits penalties against an employer or insurer that fails to reasonably controvert a claimant’s right to workers’ compensation benefits.

Burns v. Interstate Brands Corp. · filed 2010-02-03(F)

In order to avoid the imposition of penalties, an employer must reasonably controvert the workers’ compensation claimant’s right to benefits. La. R.S. 23:1201(F). ... We find no error in the WCJ’s decision to award a $2,000 penalty for failure to properly investigate Mr. Burns’ claim that the surgery caused his left arm and hand problems.

Section 23:1201 permits penalties and attorney fees when an employer or insurer fails to reasonably controvert a workers’ compensation claim with a valid reason, nonfrivolous legal dispute, or countervailing factual or medical information.

Clover v. Redfish Rentals, Inc. and Summit · filed 2023-02-08

[I]n order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits. Thus, to determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.

An employer avoids penalties only by reasonably controverting the claimant's right to compensation with sufficient factual and medical information.

Faul v. Bonin · filed 1996-08-07(E)

To avoid the imposition of penalties, an employer must reasonably controvert the claimant's right to compensation. La.R.S. 23:1201(E). Maxie, 657 So.2d 443. The test to determine if the employer has fulfilled its duty is whether the employer or his insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant.

Section 23:1201 imposes statutory penalties for unpaid compensation or medical benefits unless the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the claim, meaning it has sufficient factual and medical information to counter the employee's evidence.

Taylor v. Garrett · filed 1996-10-30

La. R.S. 23:1201 subjects the employer or insurer to statutory penalties for any unpaid compensation or medical benefits, unless the employer or insurer reasonably controverts the employee's claim. A claim is reasonably controverted if the employer or the insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the employee.

Section 23:1201(E) requires an employer or insurer to reasonably controvert a claimant's right to compensation to avoid penalties, measured by whether it has sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the claimant's information.

Curtis v. Wet Solutions, Inc. · filed 1998-12-09(E)

To avoid the imposition of penalties, an employer must reasonably controvert the claimant's right to compensation. La.R.S. 23:1201(E). ... The test to determine if the employer has fulfilled its duty is whether the employer or his insurer had sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant. ... Considering the foregoing evidence, we find that LWCC failed to present sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter that presented by Curtis. Accordingly, we find manifest error in the workers' compensation judge's failure to find that Wet Solutions and LWCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating and refusing to reinstate Curtis' weekly compensation and medical benefits despite evidence of a continuing disability. Curtis is entitled to penalties of twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits or $50.00 per calendar day, up to $2,000.00, whichever is greater. La.R.S. 23:1201(E).

Section 23:1201(F) imposes penalties when an employer or insurer withholds compensation or medical benefits without valid reasons or evidence reasonably countering the claimant's information.

Peloquin v. News · filed 1999-04-28(F)

La.R.S. 23:1201 provides that the employer or insurer is liable for statutory penalties for withholding benefits without evidence to "reasonably controvert" the employee's right to compensation and medical benefits. ... In Brown, 721 So.2d 885, 890, the supreme court specified that to reasonably controvert a claim, the employer must have some valid reasons or evidence upon which to base its denial of benefits. It stated, in relevant part: ... Thus, we hold that the workers' compensation judge had no reasonable basis to deny an award of penalties to her.

Section 23:1201(J) limits a merits hearing to one reasonable attorney-fee award even when multiple violations occurred.

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

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

Section 23:1201(J) allows only one reasonable attorney's fee per merits hearing, while Section 23:1201(F) makes a penalty mandatory when medical benefits are untimely unpaid.

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

Subsection (F)(2) excludes reasonably controverted claims from penalties, while Subsection (I) authorizes up to an $8,000 penalty for arbitrary, capricious, or baseless discontinuance of benefits and leaves the amount to the WCJ’s discretion.

Davis v. Boise Cascade Corporation · filed 2014-10-01(F)(2), (I)

F. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section or failure to consent to the employee’s request to select a treating physician or change physicians when such consent is required by R.S. 23:1121 shall result in the assessment of a penalty in an amount up to the greater of twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits, or fifty dollars per calendar day for each day in which any and all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid or such consent is withheld, together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim; however, the fifty dollars per calendar day penalty shall not exceed a maximum of two thousand dollars in the aggregate for any claim. The maximum amount of penalties which may be imposed at a hearing on the merits regardless of the number of penalties which might be imposed under this Section is eight thousand dollars. An award of penalties and attorney fees at any hearing on the merits shall be res judicata as to any and all claims for which penalties may be imposed under this Section which precedes the date of the hearing. Penalties shall be assessed in the following manner: ... (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 the facts surrounding Boise’s erroneous calculation, and considering the standard of review to be applied by this court, we find that a reasonable factual basis exists for the WCJ’s penalty award for the improper calculation of AWW; thus, this award is affirmed. ... 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. ... Considering the facts of this case, we do not find the award of $4,000.00 to be abusively low. Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the judgment awarding Mr. Davis a $4,000.00 penalty for the discontinuance of TTD.

Subsections (F) and (I) provide alternative, nonduplicative penalty regimes: (F) applies under the lesser reasonably-controvert standard with an aggregate penalty cap, while (I) applies to more egregious arbitrary and capricious discontinuances and permits a greater penalty.

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

Although penalties could be imposed under either section of the statute, to allow penalties under both sections of the statute would be to twice penalize a defendant for the same behavior. We do not believe this was the intent of the statute. There could be a situation where an employer or insurer’s behavior could warrant a penalty under the failure to reasonably controvert standard of 23:1201(F), but that same behavior would not be sufficient to amount to “arbitrary and capricious” behavior as set forth in 23:1201(I). Under the statute, the employer would still be liable for penalties and attorney fees under 23:1201(F), but the amount of penalties “shall not exceed a maximum of two thousand dollars in the aggregate for any claim.” The more egregious behavior required to meet the “arbitrary and capricious” discontinuance of benefits standard found in La.R.S. 23:1201(I) is subject to “a penalty not to exceed eight thousand dollars.” Thus, the more egregious behavior is subject to substantially greater penalties, but not duplicative penalties.

Section 23:1201(G) sets the penalty for an award under a final, nonappealable judgment that remains unpaid for more than thirty days, including the applicable daily-penalty cap.

Broussard v. Total Tower Services, Inc. · filed 2008-12-10(G)

Accordingly, we find the WCJ was clearly wrong in denying Broussard’s claim for penalties and attorney fees. La.R.S. 23:1201(G) provides for the amount of the penalty to be awarded here: ... If any award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such award an amount equal to twenty-four percent thereof or one hundred dollars per day together with reasonable attorney fees, for each calendar day after thirty days it remains unpaid, whichever is greater, which shall be paid at the same time as, and in addition to, such award, unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. . . . The total one hundred dollar per calendar day penalty provided for in this Subsection shall not exceed three thousand dollars in the aggregate.

Subsection (G) makes the penalty for nonpayment of an award under a final, nonappealable judgment mandatory, including for an immaterial underpayment, unless nonpayment resulted from conditions beyond the employer's control.

Morvant v. Shop-Rite, Inc. · filed 2013-02-06(G)

Specifically, the WCJ erroneously applied La.R.S. 23:1201(F), rather than La.R.S. 23:1201(G). ... Because this Consent Judgment falls within the confines of La.R.S. 23:1201(G), we increase the penalty award from $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. ... Any violation of La.R.S. 23:1201(G), no matter how small the amount, warrants a penalty. ... Nothing indicates that Shop Rite’s underpayment was beyond its control. Thus, a $3,000.00 penalty as provided by La.R.S. 23:1201(G) is warranted and assessed against Shop Rite.

Subsection (G) makes penalties applicable when a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due.

State of La Office of Governor, Div. of Admin. Office of Risk Mgmt, Dotd v. Richard · filed 2023-03-29(G)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(G) governs the applicability of penalties to judgments and specifically only applies when “a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due[.]” The September 15, 2015 judgment became a final, nonappealable judgment on February 17, 2017.

Section 23:1201(F) does not impose penalties for failure to pay a proposed workers' compensation settlement that has not become a final, nonappealable judgment.

Sanders v. Harrisonburg Nursing Home · filed 1995-05-31(F)

In this case, there is no language which suggests a final, non-appealable judgment. The attached transcript shows nothing more than an agreement to compromise. This preliminary agreement is not a confession of judgment. The parties did not submit a petition detailing the settlement as required by the statute. Ms. Sanders has no right to either penalties or attorney's fees at this juncture in the case.

Section 23:1201(G) requires penalties and attorney fees provisions to apply compulsorily to parish school boards that fail to timely pay workers’ compensation judgments.

Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Bd. · filed 2008-12-10(G)

This statute clearly makes La.R.S. 23:1201(G) compulsory and obligatory upon a parish school board.

Subsection (G)'s penalties and attorney-fee provisions apply to parish school boards and other public boards for nonpayment of workers' compensation benefits.

Cobb v. Lafayette Parish School Board · filed 2010-11-03(G)

Finally, we address Defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in awarding penalties and attorney’s fees because La.R.S. 23:1201(G) does not apply to public boards. This court has previously addressed this argument in Broussard v. Lafayette Parish Sch. Bd., 08-666, pp. 3-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/08), 998 So.2d 1253, 1257, writ denied, 09-471 (La. 4/17/09), 6 So.3d 794 (footnote omitted): ... This argument lacks merit.

Section 23:1201(G) applies compulsorily to parish school boards, including its penalties and attorney-fee provisions.

Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Board · filed 2008-12-10(G)

This statute clearly makes La.R.S. 23:1201(G) compulsory and obligatory upon a parish school board.

The exception in § 23:1201(F)(2) does not excuse nonpayment when the employer or insurer's delay reflects indifference or undesirable conduct within its control.

Rutledge v. Resource Transportation · filed 2009-03-04(F)(2)

At first glance, these procedural issues may appear to be “conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control”; however, the record indicates that the letters to the medical providers were not sent until January 7, 2008—a date that exceeded the sixty days for which the statute allows and a date that followed the judgment which ordered the enforcement of the agreement. Sending the correspondence at such a late date fits the description of “indifference and undesirable conduct” that the Williams court sought to discourage. Id.

Section 23:1201(F) authorizes attorney fees for violating the employee’s right to select a treating physician under § 23:1121(B)(1), including in an expedited proceeding.

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

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