Irving v. Little Sisters of Poor
Docket: No. 2001-CA-1653
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 8, 2002; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The appeal arises from the dismissal of a personal injury claim filed by a nursing assistant against Little Sisters of the Poor Home. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that the appellant knowingly made false statements to secure workers' compensation benefits, particularly regarding an alleged assault by Sister Mary Frances. The court imposed a $5,000 civil penalty on both the appellant and her witness, Beverly Frezel, who was later revealed to be the appellant’s sister-in-law. During the trial, Frezel initially claimed she did not know the appellant before the incident but, upon cross-examination, admitted their familial relationship and prior interactions. The court concluded that the appellant failed to prove her case and deemed her testimony not credible. The judgment included a forfeiture of the appellant’s rights to any workers' compensation benefits related to the incident and required her to reimburse the defendant for medical benefits and pay all trial costs. The findings were affirmed upon review. Willful fraud was established under La. R.S. 23:1208, as claimant Eva Irving intentionally misrepresented her relationship to sole eyewitness Beverly Irving Frezel, failing to disclose that she was her sister-in-law, to support her workers' compensation claim. Claimant's attorneys contended that there was no obligation to disclose this relationship, but the court disagreed, affirming that this constituted willful fraud. In her appeal, the appellant did not address her misrepresentations but claimed her attorney's malpractice for not producing a witness and for failing to compel service of process. The appellee argued that the trial court's judgment was correct, citing the appellant's lack of honesty about her relationship with Ms. Frezel and her medical condition. The appellant testified she was advised by Dr. Maumus not to return to work, yet medical records indicated she was cleared to return shortly after the alleged injury. The court referenced the requirements for forfeiture under La. R.S. 23:1208, confirming that the appellant's false statements and actions satisfied these criteria, leading to the forfeiture of her benefits. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed, with the appellant's attorney withdrawing shortly after the ruling.