Ray Feyerabend v Boomtown Casino
Wokers’ compensation claimant, Ray
Feyerabend (“Feyerabend”) sought benefits for two work-related injuries
that cause injuries to her head, wrist, hip and ankle. Workers’
Compensation,
District 9 granted employer’s, Boomtown Casino, exception of
prescription.
Feyerabend appeals.
On February 2, 1998, while working as
a cashier on the casino vessel, Ms. Feyerabend tripped causing her to
suffer injuries primarily to her neck and left arm. The second injury,
the subject of her woker’s compensation litigation, occurred on February
29, 2000. While walking from the casino vessel into the main complex
building, she slipped and fell on the gangplank “on the strip that
separates the foyer from the complex in the doorway”.
Ms. Feyerabend continued working at
Boomtown
until February of 2002, then on May 6, 2002, she filed suit against
Boomtown asserting that she was employed as Jones Act seaman and
seeking maintenance and cure as well as damages.
Boomtown successfully filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment asserting that Ms. Feyerabend was not a Jones Act
seaman at the time of her accident. Shortly before her Jones Act claims
were dismissed, plaintiff filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation with
the Office of Workers’ Compensation seeking benefits for her injuries.
Boomtown filed an Exception of
Prescription,
arguing that Ms. Feyerabend’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits
had prescribed and should be dismissed.
Did the worker’s compensation judge err in ruling in favor of Boomtown’s Exception of Prescription?
Worker’s compensation claims are barred unless filed (1) Within 1 year from the date of the accident; (2) one year from the last compensation payment for total disability or three years from the last payment of supplemental earnings benefits; or (3) one year from the time the injury develops if not immediately manifested, but no more than two years following the accident.
A party pleading prescription generally
has the burden of proving it and the claimant must prove the
prescription
was interrupted, suspended, or renounced.
The Court found that because the accident occurred in 2000 and the Disputed Claim for Compensation was not filed until June of 2006 it was prescribed on its face and Ms. Feyerabend had the burden to prove it was interrupted, suspended, or renounced.
According to the worker’s compensation court Ms. Feyerabend failed to show any wages she received were in lieu of compensation benefits and would interrupt prescription. Accordingly, this Court found no error in the findings of the worker’s compensation court and affirmed the granting of summary judgment for Boomtown.
It is vital that claims for worker’s
compensation be filed as soon as the injury occurs or is noticed.
If the employer makes payments, in
lieu of a compensation claim, the timeline to file a claim may be
lengthened.
The reason being is otherwise an employer could make minimal payments
to an employer and let the window to file compensation claims close.
Ms.
Feyerabend contended that because she was unsure whether she would be
treated as a Jones Act seaman she did not file for compensation. The
court however, did not find this sufficient as to interrupt
prescription.
<< PREVNEXT >>
