Roy LEDET v. BURGER KING/SYDRAN, 763 So. 2d 27

WOODARD, Judge. The main issue raised by this appeal of a workers’ compensation forfeiture judgment is whether an employee, who falsely represented several mileage reimbursement claims, forfeited all of the workers’ compensation benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled. We hold that an employee forfeits only the rights which flow from the misrepresentation that he committed, hence an employee misrepresenting his mileage reimbursement only forfeited his right to mileage. Mr.

Roy Ledet sustained injuries while in the course and scope of his employment as a porter with Burger King/Sydran (BKS) on September 30, 1995. He attempted to push a garbage can through BKS’ kitchen when he slipped, as he passed between an ice-machine and one of BKS’ managers. As he grabbed the manager’s shoulder and the ice-machine to prevent his fall, his back emitted a popping sound. Mr. Ledet consulted with Dr. Bruce Razza, whom he had seen for back problems and surgeries pre-dating the accident sub judice. Dr. Razza performed surgery in March 1997.

Apparently, BKS and Travelers Property Casualty (TPC), its workers’ compensation insurer, denied Mr. Ledet’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits, and Mr. Ledet filed a petition to recover such benefits on July 14, 1998. In the meantime, he submitted several mileage reimbursement requests for his costs of travel to seek medical treatment in New Orleans and Lafayette, Louisiana. TPC reimbursed him for his 1998 mileage requests of June 1, June 10, November 3, and December 8 but did not pay that of June 28 and June 29. For his various visits to Dr. Raza’s office in the New Orleans vicinity, Mr.

Ledet submitted the following claims: Furthermore, mileage requests forms dated September 1, 1998 and November 18, 1998, reflecting visits to Dr. Hodges in Lafayette, both stated that he traveled sixty miles for each visit. IüBKS introduced evidence which established that Mr. Ledet’s mileage claim for his Dr. Hodge visit should not have exceeded fourteen miles, and his mileage claim for his Dr. Raza’s visits should not have exceeded 260 miles. Ms. Carol Rade-macher, a TPC claim adjuster, testified that she did not notice any inappropriate submission besides the ones aforementioned. Mr.

Ledet explained that his inflated mileage claims could have been due to his personal miscalculation or his vehicle’s odometer not resetting all the way down to zero at the beginning of each trip. He denied having willfully tried to deceive TPC. Upon discovering Mr. Ledet’s improper mileage submission, TPC filed a motion to terminate his benefits, asserting that he had forfeited any right to workers’ compensation benefits under La.R.S. 23:1208. After a hearing on the motion held on June 8, 1999, the workers’ compensation judge found that Mr.

Ledet had willfully misrepresented the amount of miles for which he could claim reimbursement and that, under La.R.S. 23:1208, he forfeited his right to seek any workers’ compensation benefits. Mr. Ledet appeals. Willful Misrepresentation We must decide whether the workers’ compensation judge manifestly erred when she found that Mr. Ledet’s submission of erroneous mileage was willful misrepresentation. When there are two permissible views of the evidence, the workers’ compensation judge’s choice between them does not amount to a manifest error. In Resweber v. Haroil Const.

Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that a party, requesting a remedy under La.R.S. 23:1208, must prove the following requirements: (1) a false statement or representation, (2) made willfully, and (3) for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any benefit or payment. The issue of whether an employee forfeited his workers’ compensation benefits is one of fact, which we shall not reverse on appeal, absent a manifest error. In the case sub judice, Mr. Ledet does not dispute that BKS met the statute’s first and third prong.

However, he claims that BKS did not meet the second prong, namely, that he willfully inflated his mileage reimbursement claim. He insists that he 14may have miscalculated the amount of miles or that his trip odometer may have malfunctioned. The workers’ compensation judge was particularly impressed with the inflated miles he submitted for his Dr. Hodge visit and considered this specific submission to be “so grossly exaggerated as to indicate ... that there was a willful misrepresentation.” Considering the fact that Mr. Ledet lived only six to seven miles from Dr.

Hodges office, an area with which he is familiar, and the fact that he also provided false mileage information on at least seven occasions, we find that the workers’ compensation judge had a reasonable basis to find his misstatement to have been willful. Accordingly, we find no manifest error and affirm this part of the judgment. Estoppel Mr. Ledet argues that TPC and BKS paid some of the mileage claims with the knowledge that it was inaccurate for the very purpose of entrapping him to be able to claim that he forfeited his right to considerable workers’ compensation benefits.

We find this argument to be perilously close to being frivolous. Besides Mr. Ledet’s unsubstantiated assertions in his brief, we find no evidence in the record of such an intention. Furthermore, Ms. Ra-demacher provided a rational explanation regarding her reasons for paying Mr. Le-det’s claim when she suspected that it was excessive. Accordingly, we find this argument to be without merit. SCOPE OF forfeiture Having found that the workers’ compensation judge did not manifestly err in holding that Mr. Ledet made wilful misrepresentations about his mileage, we must next determine BKS’ remedy under La.

R.S. 23:1208; specifically, whether Mr. Ledet forfeited all of his rights to workers’ compensation benefits. Forfeiture of workers’ compensation benefits is a harsh remedy; thus, statutory forfeiture must be strictly construed. Moreover, the beneficent purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Law requires that its provisions be interpreted liberally in | Rfavor of the employee. When violating La.R.S. 23:1208(A), an employee subjects himself to the sanctions set forth in La.R.S. 23:1208(E), which states that “[a]ny employee violating this

Section shall, upon determination by workers’ compensation judge, forfeit any right to compensation benefitsf.]” In Supreme Rice Mill v. Guidry, we determined that when the legislature spoke of the forfeiture of “any” right, it meant any right which flowed from the perpetrated misrepresentation. In the instant case, the right which flows from Mr. Ledet’s misrepresentation of mileage is his reimbursement for mileage. His rights to other benefits are irrelevant as no misrepresentation was made regarding them, and they do not flow from his right to mileage reimbursement.

Accordingly, we reverse this part of the workers’ compensation judge’s decision. Nevertheless, under La.R.S. 23:1208(D), we assess Mr. Ledet with $500.00 in civil penalties for his misrepresentation and order that he reimburse TPC for the full amount of mileage benefits which TPC paid him from June 1, 1998, forward, which were introduced into evidence in the instant matter. CONCLUSION We find no manifest error in the workers’ compensation judge’s finding that Mr. Ledet committed a willful misrepresentation concerning mileage, and we affirm this part of the judgment.

However, we find that the judge erred in finding that he forfeited all workers’ compensation benefits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a trial on the merits of any outstanding issues pending before the workers’ compensation court. We assess Mr. Ledet with $500.00 in civil penalties and order that he repay TPC for the full amount of mileage benefits which he obtained from June 1, 1998, forward, which were introduced into evidence in the instant matter. We cast the costs for this appeal equally between Appellants and Appellees. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

SAUNDERS, J., concurs and assigns written reasons. . 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); 660 So.2d 7. . Jones v. Trendsetter Prod. Co., Inc., 97-299 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/25/98); 707 So.2d 1341, writ denied, 98-793 (La.5/15/98), 719 So.2d 463. . Benoit v. Frank's Casing Crew, 97-1522 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/20/98); 713 So.2d 762, writ denied, 98-1697 (La.10/9/98); 726 So.2d 31. . Darbonne v. M & M Right of Way Contrs., 96-1730 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/30/97); 693 So.2d 299. . 98-1252 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/10/99), 737 So.2d 856, writ denied, 99-961 (La.5/28/99); 743 So.2d 668.