Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. VS William T. White (2007CA0069 Consolidated With 2007CA0070)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 0069 Consolidated With 2007 CA 0070 WAL MART STORES INC VERSUS WILLIAM T WHITE Consolidated With WILLIAM T WHITE VERSUS WAL MART STORES INC Judgment rendered SEP 1 4 2007 On Office of Workers Appeal from the Compensation Administration District 6 Docket Numbers 05 07573 and 05 07826 Robert W Varnado Jr Office of Workers Compensation Judge Presiding William T White Appellant Hammond LA In Proper Person Brian A Gilbert New Orleans LA Scott F Davis Counsel for Appellee Metairie LA Wal Mart Stores Inc Charles M Kreamer Sr Lafayette LA BEFORE J9 1J 14 rlj f r CAr PARRO KUHN AND DOWNING JJ U4I C @NCll S DOWNING J In these consolidated workers William T Mati White appealed the employer Wal answered the WCJ compensation suits medical benefits and entered or also entered judgment denying Wal and awards of penalties and La R S statute Compensation Judge 23 1208 the manifest attOlney fees pursuant For the following standard of elTor Sheet Metal Works Inc 551 An was no his claims Louisiana findings So 2d 880 882 are clearly compensation La Industrial 1 7 97 696 So 2d WCJ s factual longer entitled suffering from injuries on April other than his While a v findings findings as a or if whole State DOTD own 21 a to benefits Mr he incurred from 2005 testimony work related claimant s Mr 617 a that he concluding he White contends that he is still working fall while White however was that presented unable to he in resume a Wal Mart no evidence employment required continued medical injury testimony trial comi is not bound to International Inc that the WCJ erred in appeal did he present any evidence treatments for See Stobart to v reasonable basis for those wrong subject cases are Banks 96 2840 p 7 forfeiture s La 1993 Mr White argues in his warehouse It affirm judgment support in the record for the findings that the record shows the no reasons we court cannot set aside the appellate unless it determines there there is to appellate review Roofing 556 judgment denying Mart s claim for forfeiture of benefits The standard of review in workers Nor Wal Inc ruled that Mr White had failed to prove his entitlement to filliher indenmity was employee Mart Stores The Office of Workers appeal the can be enough accept this testimony 593 So 2d 357 361 2 La 1992 to establish See Bruno claim the a v Harbert We note that Mr White presented no medical evidence review of the record Mr White deny s conclude that the WC we therefore White did not prove manifestly not was as a his entitlement to s first its La R S denying assignment 23 forfeiture ofMr White s 12081 In benefits Mr White the day walking same White was benefits Marilyn benefits walking into around exaggerating To bolster its Kovar the applicable of elTor to s Mr assigmnent of it alleges that the WC elTed to his a physicians in it offered treatment performing his symptoms facility a an effort to obtain surveillance video with and a cane routine errands without the strongly indicates solely for the was purpose of later cane that Mr obtaining argument Wal Mmi presented the testimony of treating physical therapist who viewed the video provides in She peliinent pmi It shall be unlawful for any person for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any benefit or payment under the provisions of this Chapter either for himself or for any other person to willfully make a 4 or representation any provision of law to the contrary which defines benefits claimed or payments obtained for purposes ofSubsection C ofthis Section the definition of benefits claimed or payments obtained shall include the cost or value of indemnity benefits and the cost or value of health care medical case management vocational rehabilitation Notwithstanding transportation D concluding that Wal Mmi contends that Mr White version of Louisiana Revised Statute 23 1208 false statement C in Mr White benefits Wal Mmi argues that this surveillance tape A reasonable basis whole supports that conclusion elToneous suppOli of this allegation showing The a thorough claim which would have resulted in the willfully exaggerating his complaints I had a is without merit In Wal Mmi in suppOli his claim Thus after claim and the record The WC elTor to expense and the reasonable costs of investigation and In addition to the criminal penalties provided litigation for in Subsection C of this Section violating provisions ofthis Section may be assessed civil penalties by the workers judge of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars the any person compensation and may be Restitution may only be ordered for benefits claimed or payments fraud and only up to the time the employer became aware of the fraudulent ordered to make restitution obtained through conduct E Any employee violating this Section shall upon detel111ination by hearing officer forfeit any right compensation benefits under this Chapter 3 to testified that in her consistent with his Mr White opinion s actions on the tape not were physical complaints The surveillance video shows that sometimes Mr White walked with a and that sometimes he did cane therapist testified that the Kovar said that balance but the White needed cane was a really recovery for him to not cane muscles that Mr 1 Cir White exaggeration After 04 14 5 s 879 So 2d 724 symptoms thorough a use of the to actuate err in therefore an this argument White second s unable the forfeiture unable White s was better for his remedy The WC cane not was the forfeiture White had and must be 03 0040 p 9 evidently found enough proof statute jurisprudence Mmi failed to prove Thus we through willfully misrepresented statute of Wal Mmi s his first of error is without merit In Wal Mmi s it harsh 730 symptoms thereby triggering the forfeiture doctor a ruling that Wal the surveillance tape that Mr forged Mr Ms In fact she testified that Mr review of the record exhibits and conclude the WC did not assignment improved James Industrial Constructors occasional of his for Mr White use a cane strictly construed Leonard v App have may The statutory forfeiture of benefits is La treating physician and his prescribed unnecessary strengthen his to Both his was never walking with cane not statute to work assigmnent slip of error and resulted in the loss of his benefits office staff into to return to alleges believing that Mr White which offense also should have actuated Wal Mmi claims that Mr White to return to it In support of deliberately misled the that Dr Roch Hontas had said he was work when in fact Dr Hontas had intended for Mr work in these facts established a a light duty capacity Wal Mmi contends that violation of La R S 23 1208 4 We note that Wal Mmi was forged by unable work that the was not a office that there confusion about the absolutely to no discrepancies willfully making 23 1208A a a false was statement second to work not to a costs staff admitted White there s was vague discrepancies rose to appeal are slips the level of R S erroneous in jurisprudence ruling the circumstances the forfeiture statute we that Wal Mart surrounding Thus the Wal Mmi we than an s affinn the application of well settled judgment by memorandum in accordance with Uniform Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 1B of this intent See La representation was about the unable to work record exhibits and no more recuning fact situation disposition to Mr s the is without merit As these issues involve rules doctor was petition s manifestly slips triggered assignment of error White or to meet its burden of proving that unable prepared by testimony find that these thorough review of the conclude that the OW failed not since it dismissed Wal Mart After document a deliberately misled them with when confronted with Mr did document Mr White slips given Even Dr Hontas the We Evidently work to stating that Additionally while the evidence that Mr White obtain benefits but forgery staff in Dr Hontas was some unable However the paper Mr White to return to alleges assessed against Wal AFFIRMED 5 Mart Stores Inc All
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
