Holliday v. State ex rel. Office of Financial Assistance
1999 La. App. LEXIS 3760, 747 So. 2d 755, 98 La.App. 1 Cir. 2196 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not immune from tort liability under the workers' compensation exclusivity provision for an employee's injury when that injury is specifically excluded from coverage by the workers' compensation statute itself.
Facts:
- Andrea Wright, an employee of the State of Louisiana, was involved in an ongoing personal dispute with her husband, Donald Ray Wright.
- Several days before the fatal incident, Andrea asked her supervisor for time off to obtain a restraining order because her husband had threatened to kill her.
- On November 29, 1996, Donald Wright called Andrea at her office and explicitly stated he was coming there to kill her.
- Andrea immediately informed her supervisor of this specific threat.
- Shortly thereafter, Donald Wright arrived at the office building, proceeded to Andrea's floor, and fatally shot her.
- The shooting stemmed directly from the personal dispute between Andrea and her husband and was unrelated to her employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Lottie Holliday, the victim's mother, filed a tort lawsuit against the State of Louisiana in a state trial court.
- The State of Louisiana filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the workers' compensation law provided the exclusive remedy and barred the tort suit.
- Holliday filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing the tort suit was permissible because the injury was specifically excluded from coverage by the workers' compensation statute.
- The trial court judge granted Holliday's motion and denied the state's motion, ruling that the tort suit was not barred.
- The State of Louisiana, as appellant, appealed this judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusivity provision of the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act bar a tort suit against an employer when the employee's injury arose from a personal dispute unrelated to employment and is therefore specifically excluded from compensation coverage by statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Foil, J.
No. The exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar a tort suit against an employer for an injury that is specifically excluded from the Act's coverage. The court reasoned that the immunity from tort suits granted to employers by La.R.S. 23:1032 only applies to injuries 'for which [an employee] is entitled to compensation.' The Act, under La.R.S. 23:1031 E, explicitly excludes injuries arising from a dispute with another person over matters unrelated to the injured employee's employment. Citing Guillory v. Interstate Gas Station, the court found that Andrea Wright's death was not an injury 'arising out of' employment and was thus not covered by the workers' compensation scheme. The court distinguished between a claim that is statutorily not covered (allowing a tort suit) and a claim that is covered but fails for lack of proof (barring a tort suit), concluding that because this injury was fundamentally outside the scope of the Act, the employer's tort immunity is inapplicable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of employer tort immunity under workers' compensation law, establishing that the immunity is coextensive with the Act's coverage, not absolute. It prevents an employer from using the exclusivity provision as a shield against tort liability for an injury that the Act itself does not remedy. The ruling reinforces the quid pro quo principle of workers' compensation: employers gain immunity in exchange for providing no-fault benefits, but if the law dictates that no benefits are available because the injury is statutorily excluded, the corresponding immunity is lost.
Unlock the full brief for Holliday v. State ex rel. Office of Financial Assistance