Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gatlin v. Cox Communications, Inc.
Citations: 818 So. 2d 801; 2 La.App. 5 Cir. 32; 2002 La. App. LEXIS 1156; 2002 WL 815314Docket: No. 02-CA-32
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 30, 2002; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed by Dwayne Gatlin concerning a judgment that upheld an exception of prescription raised by Cox Communications, Inc. in a workers’ compensation case. Gatlin was injured on January 9, 1999, while employed by Cox when a utility pole broke, leading him to receive temporary total disability benefits until February 1, 1999. He subsequently returned to work and on August 12, 1999, initiated a lawsuit against Entergy Corporation, the pole's owner, which remains pending. Gatlin filed a claim for additional workers' compensation benefits against Cox on May 15, 2000. In response, Cox claimed an exception of prescription, which the workers’ compensation judge upheld. According to La. R.S. 23:1209, a claim for additional benefits prescribes one year from the last payment of temporary total disability benefits. Cox argued that Gatlin's claim was time-barred under this statute. However, Gatlin contended that the tort suit against Entergy interrupted the prescriptive period for his claim against Cox. The court referenced the precedent set in Williams v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, which established that a timely filed suit against the employer for workers' compensation interrupts prescription for a subsequent claim against a third-party tortfeasor. Additionally, the court cited Bradley v. Mike Rougee Corporation, affirming that the same principle applies when the tort suit is filed before the workers' compensation claim would prescribe. The court determined that Gatlin's filing of the tort suit against Entergy effectively interrupted the prescription of his workers' compensation claim against Cox, rendering the initial judgment incorrect. Consequently, the court vacated the judgment sustaining the exception of prescription and remanded the case to the Office of Workers’ Compensation for further proceedings.