Background
Rae Rodriguez, a Willis Knighton employee, fell at work on June 12, 2024, after tripping over a car-seat strap. She reported lower-back, neck, and arm injuries, received treatment and work restrictions, and later obtained an MRI showing lumbar disc bulging and herniation. Willis Knighton terminated benefits after filing a notice of controversion, and Rodriguez filed a workers’ compensation claim.
Before beginning employment, and again on the date of the accident, Rodriguez completed questionnaires that asked whether she had ever had an on-the-job accident and whether a doctor had recommended uncompleted surgery. She answered “No” to both. The evidence showed that she had sustained workplace injuries in 2018 and 2022 while working for Mercedes-Benz of Shreveport, and that a physician had said she would likely benefit from cervical surgery that she did not undergo.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the workers’ compensation judge’s dismissal of Rodriguez’s claim. It held that the evidence supported a finding that Rodriguez gave untruthful answers on properly worded questionnaires containing the required forfeiture warning, satisfying the first and third elements of La. R.S. 23:1208.1.
The court also found prejudice to Willis Knighton. Rodriguez failed to disclose the prior cervical condition and surgical recommendation while seeking benefits for a neck injury; truthful answers would have placed the employer in a position to establish a permanent partial disability and pursue Second Injury Fund reimbursement. The court found no manifest error in the forfeiture ruling and therefore did not address Willis Knighton’s alternative argument under La. R.S. 23:1208.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant may forfeit all workers’ compensation benefits by giving untruthful answers on a compliant preemployment medical questionnaire.
- Questions about prior workplace accidents and uncompleted surgical recommendations were sufficiently tailored to identify potential permanent partial disabilities.
- Because the court affirmed forfeiture under La. R.S. 23:1208.1, it did not reach the employer’s separate fraud-based argument under La. R.S. 23:1208.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that an employer invoking La. R.S. 23:1208.1 must prove an untruthful answer, prejudice, and statutory notice. Here, the overlap between Rodriguez’s undisclosed prior cervical condition and her later neck-related compensation claim supported both direct relation and harm to the employer’s potential Second Injury Fund rights.