2014 CA 1001 (LA.1 CIR. 12/23/14), 168 SO.3D 507.
Case Background
In Albert v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co., LLC, 2014 CA 1001 (La. 1 Cir. 12/23/14), 168 So.3d 507, a significant legal process called a Preliminary Determination Hearing (PDH) was introduced in Louisiana in 2013. This allowed employers a practice trial before a workers’ compensation judge to get an advisory opinion on claimant issues. The decision from this hearing was non-binding and non-appealable, giving the losing side the choice to accept the recommendations and avoid potential penalties and attorney fees or proceed to a full trial.
Implications for Claimants
For claimants, avoiding a PDH is crucial. The Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act threatens employers with penalties and attorney fees to ensure compliance with the law. The PDH process reduces this incentive, allowing employers to avoid adverse consequences by following the non-binding recommendations from the practice trial.
Stress on Injured Workers
Trials, whether practice or real, are stressful for injured workers, especially when they are not receiving the benefits needed for recovery. This case highlighted the emotional and physical toll on claimants already struggling to regain normalcy in their lives.
Court of Appeal Guidance
This case provided significant analysis and guidance from the Court of Appeal on the Preliminary Determination Hearing requirements. It addressed ambiguities in the statute and offered clarity on the procedural aspects of PDHs.
Vocational Rehabilitation Cross-Examination
The case underscored the importance of cross-examining vocational rehabilitation (voc rehab) counselors. These counselors are ethically obligated to help the injured worker, but insurance companies often employ and pay them. It is rare for a voc rehab report from an insurance-hired counselor to conclude that someone is unemployable or requires significant retraining.
Outcome and Lessons
My client’s workers’ compensation payments were terminated based on a vocational rehab counselor’s identification of suitable jobs. However, during the trial, the counselor admitted that my client lacked many of the necessary skills and qualifications for those jobs. This concise cross-examination demonstrated the counselor’s bias and lack of thorough assessment, ultimately benefiting my client’s case.
Conclusion
The Albert case highlighted the challenges and intricacies of the Preliminary Determination Hearing process and the importance of diligent legal representation. It emphasized the need for claimants to be wary of the PDH process and showcased the critical role of effective cross-examination in protecting the rights of injured workers.