Case ID: so2d_928/html/0540-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      VICTORY, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

April GLAZE v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
    No. 2005-C-1734.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
    CALOGERO, C.J., and TRAYLOR, J., would grant.
    VICTORY, J., dissents from the writ denial and assigns reasons.
   VICTORY, J.,

dissenting from the writ denial.

| ¾ While stating that payment of workers’s compensation benefits does not constitute an admission that they are owed, the court of appeal failed to apply the statute. Since Wal-Mart has disputed that an accident occurred and plaintiff was disabled as a result, there can be no penalty or attorneys’ fees at this time for failure to pay the correct amount of benefits. Wal-Mart may prevail at the trial of the case on the merits that there was no accident and/or no resulting disability and no workers’ compensation is owed. Surely, an employer cannot be penalized for failing to pay the “correct” amount of benefits, when no benefits are owed.

I would grant Wal-Mart’s writ application.