Court Opinion

ID: 9841325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 22:05:16.015517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:31.887250
License: Public Domain

I II
                        f •          y/•           y

                       guag" W"  y
                                      i i

                              VERSUS

                              WALMART

                                       Judgment Rendered:   SEP 21. 2023

                       ON APPEAL FROM THE
       OFFICE OF WORKERS` COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 9
              TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA
                    DOCKET NUMBER 20- 06176

Brad O. Price                          Attorney for Claimant -Appellee
Denham Springs, Louisiana              Tammy Dubois

Michael E. Parker                      Attorney for Defendant -Appellant
Lafayette, Louisiana                   Walmart, Inc.

    BEFORE:      THERIOT, PENZATO, and GREENE, 33.
GREENE 3

        In this workers' compensation case, an employer appeals a judgment: finding a

former employee was injured in a work-related accident causing an aggravation of her

pre- existing back and hip conditions; decreeing the former employee was entitled to

medical treatment until the aggravation resolved; and, awarding benefits, penalties, and

attorney fees to the former employee.       After review, we affirm.

        In August 2014, Tammy Dubois, then 37 years old, began employment as a cashier

at a Walmart store in Houma, Louisiana.         She later became a support manager, and as

of 2020, was a department manager.          Ms. Dubois had a history of chronic dull low back

pain during her Walmart employment. Her supervisors and co- workers were aware of

her condition, because she often complained and went home on her lunch break to take

pain medicine.

       According to Ms. Dubois, on the morning of September 1, 2020, she was at work

and moving multiple cases of bottled water from a display shelf onto a cart. As she lifted

one case, turned, and shifted her weight, Ms. Dubois claims she heard something " snap"

in what she thought was her lower back or hip, followed by a burning sensation, and pain

in her whole lower back and left leg.        She dropped the case of water and told Cody

Duplantis, a co-worker who was just approaching, that she had hurt herself; she asked

him to pick up the case of water she had dropped. Ms. Dubois further claims that she

walked around trying to see if the pain would ease, but it did not. She then told Zena

Johnson, the store manager, who was standing with Starla Ledet, an assistant manager,

and at least one other Walmart employee, that she had hurt herself and was going to
take her lunch break, go home, and take a pain pill. After her lunch break, Ms. Dubois

returned to work for the rest of that day, but the pain did not subside.        She claims the

pain she felt was different than her usual chronic low back pain, describing the new pain
as " off to the side ... stabbing, [ and] throbbing ... ."   She also claims that she told Zach

Gaudet, a Walmart asset protection manager, that her current pain was different than
her usual chronic pain.   An accident report was not completed on that day.

                                                2
          At the trial of Ms. Dubois' workers' compensation claim, Ms. Ledet testified on

behalf of Walmart. She was familiar with Ms. Dubois' regular complaints of pain and use

of pain medications.        She remembered hearing Ms. Dubois say, on September 1, 2020,

that she was going home on her lunch break to take pain medication for her back but

denied that Ms. Dubois reported an accident or injury. According to Ms. Ledet, she would

have completed an accident report that day had Ms. Dubois reported an accident to her,

because this was her duty as a manager.

          After September 1, 2020, Ms. Dubois did not return to her job duties at Walmart.

On September 7th, six days later, she went to the Terrebonne General Medical Center

emergency room ( TGMC) with complaints of sharp, stabbing " left lower back pain with

radiation into [ her] left leg after picking up on a case of water at work." She reported to

the TGMC staff that she was taking medication for prior back issues but " this [ was] a

different type of pain."        A lumbar x- ray showed no acute findings, and after receiving
multiple injections, she was discharged with a diagnosis of sciatica,'                   given medication,

and was told to consult her primary care physician as soon as possible for further

evaluation and a possible MRI referral.

          On September 9, 2020, Ms. Dubois returned to Walmart to complete an accident

report.     Ms.
                  Ledet also completed an employer report of injury indicating that, on

September 1St, Ms. Dubois injured her back when she was moving a case of water and
turned the wrong way.2 Walmart arranged for Ms. Dubois to be seen at the Occupational

Medicine Services clinic ( OMS) on September 17th, where she again presented with

complaints of low back pain radiating down her left leg.                A nurse practitioner diagnosed

her with sciatica, recommended that she follow up with a neurosurgeon or orthopedist

for her recently developed complaints of loss of bladder control and saddle anesthesia

type symptoms, and indicated she could not return to work. According to Ms. Dubois,

I Sciatica is a condition characterized by pain radiating from the back into the buttock and posterior/ lateral
aspects of the leg. www.online- medical-dictionary. org/ definitions. As conceded by Walmart in its appellate
brief, the TGMC medical record incorrectly indicated Ms. Dubois had right -side sciatica, rather than left -
side sciatica, because all of Ms. Dubois' complaints were on the left side.

2 Ms. Dubois completed a separate incident report on the same day and listed Mr. Duplantis, Mr. Gaudet,
and Ms. Ledet as witnesses.

                                                      3
she had several conversations with Michael Elkins, Walmart' s workers' compensation case

manager, trying to set up the recommended follow- up appointment, but the appointment

did not occur.

           On October 9, 2020, Ms. Dubois` attorney emailed Mr. Elkins asking that he contact

Dr. Peter Liechty, a neurosurgeon, with approval for Ms. Dubois to see Dr. Leichty as her
                                                                                                      15th,
physician of choice. 3          After her attorney received no response, on October                           Ms.

Dubois filed a disputed claim for compensation with the Office of Workers' Compensation

     OWC),    claiming Walmart had refused to authorize the recommended neurological

evaluation.       On October 27th, she consulted Dr. Liechty on her own.                   He examined Ms.

Dubois and discussed her medical history with her at length. Although he noted her

     fairly robust baseline [ history] of low back and left hip issues," Dr. Liechty found her

clinical     state   was "   markedly worse"       and,        more likely than not, was       related to the

September 1st work-related incident.               He opined that she appeared to have suffered an

injury to either her low back, left SI joint,4 or left hip, and that he also had concerns
                                  5
regarding left sacroiliitis.          He recommended MRIs of her lumbar spine and left hip to

explore his concerns and indicated she was completely and temporarily disabled at that
time.

           On November 6, 2020, before seeing Dr. Liechty's report, Walmart answered Ms.

Dubois' disputed claim, denying that she had a work-related accident and pointing out
her history of medically -documented low back complaints. After he received Dr. Liechty' s

report, Walmart's counsel emailed Ms. Dubois' counsel, on November 12t,, stating that

Dr. Liechty's report did not change Walmart's position, and Walmart would not approve

the recommended MRIs or treatment with Dr. Liechty, nor would it initiate the payment

of workers' compensation benefits to Ms. Dubois.

3 Under La. R. S. 23: 1121, an injured employee shall have the right to select one treating physician in any
field or specialty, and she shall submit herself to an examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner
provided and paid for by the employer, as soon after the accident as demanded, and from time to time
thereafter during the pendency of her compensation claim.
4"

      SI joint" is a short form for "sacroiliac joint," the immovable joint formed by the lateral surfaces of the
sacrum ( five fused vertebrae forming a triangle -shaped structure at the back of the pelvis) and ilium ( the
largest of three bones that make up each half of the pelvic girdle).                  www.online- medical-
dictionary.org/ definitions.

5 Sacroiliitis is inflammation of the sacroiliac joint. www.online-medical-dictionary.org/ definitions.

                                                          19
       On November 8, 2021, more than a year later, Ms. Dubois saw Dr. Manish Singh,

a   neurosurgeon,         for a second medical opinion at Walmart's request.     Before the

appointment, Dr. Singh reviewed Ms. Dubois' past medical records, including x- rays and

MRIs. Then, after examining Ms. Dubois and discussing her condition with her, Dr. Singh

wrote a report opining that Ms. Dubois did not sustain a work-related injury on September

if 2020.     In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Singh stated that a post -accident MRI only

showed chronic and degenerative findings and did not show any new pathology indicating

an acute lumbar spine injury or SI joint issues associated with the alleged September 1,

2020 accident.

       An OWC workers' compensation judge ( WO) ultimately conducted a trial where

the parties introduced documentary evidence, Ms. Dubois and Ms. Ledet testified, and

the WO then took the matter under advisement. On September 9, 2022, the WO signed

a judgment in Ms. Dubois' favor and against Walmart, decreeing, interalia, that: ( 1) on

September 1,         2020, Ms.   Dubois was injured in a work-related accident causing an

aggravation of a pre-existing lumbar condition and left hip condition; ( 2) Ms. Dubois was

entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment of her low back, left hip, left leg,

and SI joint, at Walmart's expense, until the aggravation of her pre-existing condition
was resolved; (      3)   Ms. Dubois was entitled to indemnity benefits from the date of the

accident and continuing, as allowed by law; and ( 4) Walmart was liable for $ 8, 000 in

penalties    and $   8, 000 in attorney fees for failure to approve Ms.   Dubois' choice of

physician,    failure to properly investigate her claim, and failure to initiate medical

treatment and indemnity benefit payments.

       Walmart appeals from the adverse Judgment.

                                          DISCUSSION

                                      Compensable Injury

       In assignments of error numbers one through five, Walmart contends the WO

erred in finding that Ms. Dubois proved an accident occurred in the course of scope of

her employment resulting in a compensable injury and subsequent disability for which
she was entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits.

                                                 5
       In Headley v. Textron Systems, 20- 1174 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 26/ 21), 324 So. 3d 1080,

1085, this Court set forth the applicable law and burdens of proving a work-related

accident:

                 The Workers' Compensation Act provides coverage to a worker for
       personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of [ her]
       employment.       La. R. S. 23: 1031[ A].        A worker must prove the chain of
       causation required by the workers' compensation statutory scheme: [ she]
       must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident was
       work-related, that the accident caused the injury, and that the injury caused
       the disability. A worker's testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge
        her] burden of proving an accident, provided two elements are satisfied:
        1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker's
       version of the incident; and ( 2) the worker's testimony is corroborated by
       the circumstances following the alleged incident. Corroboration of the
       worker's testimony may be provided by the testimony of co- workers,
       spouses, friends, or by medical evidence. ( Citations omitted.)

       Also, in Bridges v. GatenS7 Adventures Unlimited, L. L. C., 14- 1132 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

4/ 2/ 15), 167 So. 3d 992, 1001- 02, this Court set forth the applicable law and burdens of

proving/ disproving the aggravation of a pre- existing condition:

               An otherwise healthy employee with a pre[-] existing condition is
       entitled to benefits if she can prove that her work-related accident
       contributed to, aggravated, or accelerated her injury. When an employee
       proves that before the accident she had not manifested disabling
       symptoms,
                      but commencing with the accident the disabling symptoms
       appeared      and   manifested    themselves,          and   medical   or   circumstantial
       evidence indicates a reasonable possibility of a causal connection, the
       employee' s work injury is presumed to have aggravated or accelerated the
       pre[-]
                existing infirmity or disease to produce her disability.

                 Once the employee has established the presumption of causation,
       the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence and persuading
       the trier of fact that it is more probable than not that the work injury did
       not accelerate, aggravate,
                                      or combine with the pre- existing disease or
       infirmity to produce the employee's disability. ( Citations omitted.)

      The WC]" s determination of whether an employee has carried her burden of proof

is factual and subject to the manifest error standard of review. Calhoun v. Sanderson

Farms, Inc., 22- 0478 ( La. App.     1 Cir. 12/ 16/ 22), 357 So. 3d 354, 359. In applying the

manifest error standard, this Court determines if the WO' s conclusion was reasonable,

not whether the WO was right or wrong.                  Id.   Where two permissible views of the

evidence exist, the WO's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous.                        Id.

Further, under the manifest error standard,
                                                         this Court defers to the WO' s findings

regarding witness credibility, including the evaluation of expert testimony.               Id. After a

                                                   I
                                                   Al
thorough review of the record, as discussed below, we conclude the WCJ' s determination

that Ms. Dubois sustained a compensable injury is primarily based on factual findings,

including credibility determinations, and that there is a reasonable factual basis for those

findings in the record of this case.

          Regarding the occurrence of a work-related accident,6 Ms. Dubois testified at trial

that, on September 1, 2020, when she lifted a case of water, turned, and shifted her

weight, she felt a " snap" in her lower back or hip, followed by a burning sensation, and

pain in her whole lower back and left leg. She also testified that she told Mr. Duplantis

and Ms. Johnson that she hurt herself and that Ms. Ledet and Mr. Gaudet heard her make

the statement to Ms. Johnson.              Ms. Dubiois also testified that, when she returned from

her lunch break, she told Mr. Gaudet that the pain she was having was different than her
usual chronic low back pain.           Ms. Dubois' testimony is corroborated by the September 7,

2020 TGMC medical record, which also documents her report that the sharp, stabbing
lower back pain radiating into her left leg was a " different type of pain" than her prior

back pain.'
                 At trial, Ms. Ledet, Walmart's only live witness, denied hearing Ms. Dubois

report an accident but admitted on cross- examination that she had no reason to doubt

such a report; and, neither party called Mr. Duplantis, Ms. Johnson, or Mr. Gaudet as

witnesses.$        Thus, despite the inconsistency between Ms. Dubois' and Ms. Ledet' s

testimony, the WO evaluated the conflicting evidence and chose to believe that the
September 1,        2020 incident in fact occurred and was a compensable work-related

accident.     Because there is a reasonable basis in the record for this factual determination,

we find no manifest error.          See Headley, 324 So. 3d at 1085; Calhoun, 357 So. 3d at 363.

5
    As defined by Louisiana workers' compensation law, an " accident" is " an unexpected or unforeseen
actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and
directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual
deterioration or progressive degeneration." La. R. S. 23: 1021( 1).

    The medical records of OMS and Dr. Liechty also corroborate the occurrence of an accident.

8 Both parties argue in brief that their opponent's position should be adversely viewed for failure to call
certain witnesses to testify. When a litigant fails to produce evidence within his reach, a presumption that
the evidence would have been detrimental to his case may apply, unless the failure to produce the evidence
is adequately explained. See Robins v. Pirzadah, 19- 0523 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 27/ 19), 292 So. 3d 570, 577,
writ denied, 20- 00043 ( La. 4/ 27/ 20),
                                           295 So. 3d 396. This adverse presumption is rebuttable and may not
apply  when   the
1 Cir. 9/ 21/ 12),
                   witness  is equally available to the opposing party. See Walley v. Vargas, 12- 0022 ( La. App.
                   104  So. 3d  93, 104, n. 8; Augustus   v. St. Mary Parish School Bd., 95- 2498 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
6/ 28/ 96),676 So. 2d 1144, 1152.

                                                        7
         We next review the WCYs determination that Ms. Dubois' work- related accident

caused the aggravation of pre- existing lumbar and left hip conditions. The record clearly

establishes that Ms. Dubois had pre- existing chronic low back pain, as well as left hip

pain, before the date of the alleged September 1, 2020 accident.9                     At trial, Ms. Dubois

admitted that she had chronic back pain during the entire time she worked at Walmart

and that she complained of it regularly to her co-workers.                    However, the record also

shows that, before September 1st, she was able to perform her job duties while having

the chronic pain.        For at least one year before the accident, Ms. Dubois' duties included

stocking shelves in Walmart' s paper and chemical department with items such as paper

towels, toilet paper, washing detergent, and cleaning supplies.                    During that year, and

well before that, Ms. Dubois' medical records indicate that she took pain medication and

received injections for low back and hip issues, but her doctor, Dr. Patrick Walker, had

not restricted her from work status. She testified that she worked full- time, five days a

week, plus overtime.

         In contrast, after the September 1, 2020 accident, Ms. Dubois complained of a

different pain, and testified that, in the days before she went to TGMC on September 7th,

she could barely walk and her left leg was " going numb, pulling, [ and] burning."                          At

TGMC on September 7th, and at OMS on September 17th, Ms. Dubois repeated the same

symptoms described above and was diagnosed with sciatica. On October 27th, Dr. Liechty

noted her significant low back and left hip history, but specifically found that her clinical
state was " markedly       worse," was probably related to the September 1st accident, and

that she appeared to have suffered an injury to either her low back, left SI joint, or left

hip. At trial, Ms. Dubois testified that, since the accident, she had not returned to her

pre -accident health and did not think she could return to her former type of job duties,
because she "[ couldn't] function         hardly half the time," due to leg numbness and back
pain.

9 In 1995, Ms. Dubois hurt her lower back in a motor vehicle accident; in 2000, she hurt her lower back
and right leg or knee in a boating accident; in 2009, she hurt her lower back while working at Rite Aid; in
2019, she had left hip and left groin pain and was diagnosed with left side sciatica; and, in July 2020, about
two months before the subject accident, she had lumbar pain and reported to her doctor that she was
hurting all the time."

                                                      N.
       We find that, based on the above evidence, Ms. Dubois was entitled to the

presumption that the September 1st accident aggravated her pre- existing lumbar and left

hip conditions and produced her disability. See Bridges, 167 So. 3d at 1001.            That is, Ms.

Dubois proved that, before September 1, 2020, her chronic back and hip conditions did

not manifest disabling symptoms, but as of the September 1St accident, " markedly worse"

disabling low back and hip symptoms manifested themselves.              Further, she presented

medical evidence and circumstantial evidence that indicated a reasonable possibility of a

causal connection between the accident and the disabling symptoms.             See Bridges, 167

So. 3d at 1001.

       Thus,    despite   Walmart's    knowledge   of   Ms.   Dubois'   pre- existing    condition,

possession of medical records documenting her pre-existing condition,                    and   later

production of Dr. Singh"s opinion that Ms. Dubois did not sustain a work-related injury,

the WO determined that the September 1st accident occurred, produced an aggravation,

and that Walmart did not overcome the presumption that the accident aggravated Ms.

Dubois' pre- existing condition.      Where two permissible views of the evidence exist,

whether lay, expert, or medical, the WO's choice between them cannot be manifestly
erroneous.     Calhoun, 357 So. 3d at 359. These assignments of error are meritless.

                              Penalties and Attorney Fees

       In assignment of error number seven, Walmart contends the WO erred in

assessing Walmart with penalties and attorney fees. Walmart contends it reasonably

controverted Ms. Dubois' claim, because it had evidence of her long and extensive history
of back pain and that she did not report that a work-related accident occurred on
September 1, 2020.

      In Headley, 324 So. 3d at 1086- 87, this Court set forth the applicable law and

burden of proof for an assessment of penalties and attorney fees:
               The Workers' Compensation Act pertinently provides that, unless an
      employer reasonably controverts a workers' compensation claim, its failure
      to pay such benefits in accordance with the Act shall result in a penalty and
      reasonable attorney fees.      See La. R. S. 23: 1201[ F].     An employer
      reasonably controverts a claim when it has sufficient factual and/ or medical
      information to counter the employee' s factual and/ or medical information
      throughout the time it refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly
      owed. Statutes providing for penalties and attorney fees are penal in nature

                                              0
       and must be strictly construed. The crucial inquiry is whether the employer
       had an articulable and objective reason to deny payment at the time It took
       action.    Penalties should not be imposed in doubtful cases, where a bona
       fide dispute exists as to the employee' s entitlement to benefits, and the
       mere fact that an employer loses a disputed claim is not determinative. A
       WO' s determination that an employer should be cast with penalties and
       attorney fees is a factual question, and we review that determination under
       the manifest error standard of review. (    Emphasis added; some citations
       omitted.)

       Walmart correctly points out that it had lay and medical evidence showing Ms.

Dubois' long and extensive history of back pain and hip pain. In its brief, it also devotes

considerable argument to parsing Ms. Dubois' medical records to show that the injury

and pain she claimed after September 1, 2020, were located in the same back area, hip,

and leg where she had been treated for years before.         However, an employee' s pre-

existing condition does not disqualify her from ever asserting a claim for a work-related

injury to the same body parts; rather, as pointed out previously, she need merely show

that the pre- existing condition was aggravated.      See Dufrene v. Louisiana Workers'

Compensation Corporation, 19- 1202 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 11/ 20), 304 So. 3d 93, 97.      An

employee' s entitlement to benefits for the aggravation of a pre-existing condition is a

well- established principle in workers' compensation law dating back as far as 1917 — a

principle with which Walmart presumably was familiar when evaluating Ms. Dubois' claim.

See Johnson III, A., 13 La. Civ. L. Treatise § 232 and § 232, n. 1, Workers' Compensation

Law and Practice,     The abnormally susceptible employee ( 5th ed. - Dec. 2022 update)

 The courts have firmly established the principle that the employer must take the worker

as he finds him.   The worker who is abnormally susceptible to disability is entitled to the

full protection of the [ Louisiana] compensation statute, even though the same accident

would have caused little or no harm to a healthy worker.'(     Footnote omitted.)

       Further,    Walmart   presented   no evidence documenting the timeline of its

investigation of Ms. Dubois' claim. Although Mr. Elkins, Walmart's workers' compensation

case manager, authorized Ms. Dubois to be seen at OMS on September 17, 2020, there

is no evidence indicating why he, or any other Walmart representative, failed to authorize

the recommended follow up visit to either a neurosurgeon or orthopedist, and refused to

respond to Ms. Dubois' attorney's October 9, 2020 request for approval of Dr. Liechty as

                                             10
Ms. Dubois' physician of choice.      The record does show, however, that Ms. Dubois'

attorney sent Dr. Liechty' s report to Walmart's attorney on November 12, 2020. In his

report, Dr. Liechty noted Ms. Dubois' pre- existing lumbar and left hip issues, but clearly

indicated that her clinical   state   was " markedly worse,"   she   was completely and

temporarily disabled at that time, and that he recommended follow up treatment.         On

that same day, Walmart's attorney acknowledged receipt of Dr. Liechty' s report but stated

that it changed nothing; he stated that Walmart had appropriately denied Ms. Dubois'

claim and would not approve recommended treatment nor initiate the payment of

benefits.

       Notwithstanding Walmart's possession of medical records indicating Ms. Dubois

had pre-existing lumbar and left hip conditions, when Walmart received Dr. Liechty's

report that Ms. Dubois' pre- existing condition had worsened, it had a continuing duty to

investigate and make every reasonable effort to assemble factual and medical information

to ascertain whether Ms. Dubois' claim was compensable before denying benefits.        See

Terrebonne v. St Tammany Parish Hospital, 21- 1212 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 20/ 22), 347 So. 3d

909, 918.   Walmart points to no evidence in the record explaining what " articulable and

objective reason" it had to wait an entire year before sending Ms. Dubois to Dr. Singh for

a second medical opinion.   See Headley, 324 So. 3d at 1088. We are mindful of our duty

to strictly construe penalty statutes.     However,   absent explanatory evidence from

Walmart, we find the record reasonably supports the WC' s finding that Walmart had no

reasonable basis to continue to deny Ms. Dubois' claim without prompt investigation.    As

such, we find no manifest error in the WO' s factual determination to assess penalties

and attorney fees against Walmart for failure to approve Ms. Dubois' choice of physician,

failure to properly investigate her claim, and failure to initiate medical treatment and

indemnity payment benefits. This assignment of error is meritless.

                                 Forfeiture of Benefits

       In assignment of error number six, Walmart contends the WO erred in failing to
find Ms. Dubois violated La. R. S. 23: 1208 by making willfully false statements for the
purpose of obtaining workers' compensation benefits.      Under La. R. S. 23: 1208( A) and

                                            11
 E),   if a WCJ determines that an employee has willfully made a false statement or

representation for the purpose of obtaining any workers' compensation benefit, that

employee shall forfeit any right to such benefits. Headley, 324 So. 3d at 1089. To prevail

on a forfeiture claim,     the employer must prove each element required by La.                  R. S.

23: 1208( A): ( 1) a false statement or representation; ( 2) that was willfully made; and ( 3)

made for the purpose of obtaining workers' compensation benefits. Calhoun, 357 So. 3d

at 361- 62.    Because forfeiture of benefits is a harsh remedy, La. R. S. 23: 1208 must be

strictly construed.    Id. at 361.   We apply the manifest error standard of review to the

WO' s     determination    regarding   benefit   forfeiture,   just   as   we   do   to   the   WO' s

determinations regarding the employee's burden of proving a compensable injury and

the assessment of penalties and attorney fees.        See Id. at 362.

          In its brief, Walmart claims Ms. Dubois failed to disclose prior left leg problems to

TGMC staff, OMS staff, Dr. Liechty, and Mr. Elkins. Walmart contends Ms. Dubois willfully

made these false statements or misrepresentations to obtain workers' compensation

benefits, in violation of La. R. S. 23: 1208( A).     We have carefully reviewed each of Ms.

Dubois' allegedly false statements, as well as her trial testimony, wherein Walmart' s
counsel cross examined her about the statements. Based on the medical records from

TGMC, OMS, and Dr. Liechty, and Ms. Dubois' explanations at trial, we find the WO had

a reasonable factual basis from which to determine that none of Ms. Dubois' statements,

even if incomplete or incorrect, were willfully made for the purpose of obtaining workers'
compensation benefits. See Calhoun, 357 So. 3d 361- 62.           The WO obviously found Ms.

Dubois to be very credible and truthful in her explanations. The WO is in a superior

position to observe a witness' demeanor and to evaluate credibility.            Calhoun, 357 So. 3d

at 363.
           We conclude the WO did not manifestly err in finding no violation of La. R.S.
23: 1208. This assignment of error is meritless.

                                        CONCLUSION

        After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the WO did not manifestly err
in concluding that Tammy Dubois proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, the

occurrence of a work- related accident causing an aggravation of her pre-existing lumbar

                                                 12
condition and left hip condition.   We affirm the judgment ( 1)    decreeing that Tammy

Dubois is entitled to medical treatment until the aggravation resolves and ( 2) awarding

benefits, penalties, and attorney fees to her.   We assess costs of the appeal to Walmart,

Inc.

       F-11 a 4 CIAL 14

                                            13