Skip to main content

Foy v. Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc.

La. Ct. App.March 20, 2013No. No. 12-1126
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Cooks, Peters, Saunders
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

erisa

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

Appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part. Court awarded an additional $2,000 penalty for failure to properly authorize physical therapy by the original treating physician, but upheld the WCJ's denial of a second separate penalty for Dr. Gunderson's treatments and denied TTD benefits for the earlier period.

What This Ruling Means

**Foy v. Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc. - What Workers Need to Know** This case involved a worker named Foy who had a dispute with their employer's workers' compensation insurance company over medical treatment authorization and temporary disability benefits. Foy argued that the insurance company failed to properly approve necessary medical care and should have paid for time off work due to their injury. The appellate court reached a mixed decision. The court sided with Foy on one issue, ordering the insurance company to pay an additional $2,000 penalty for failing to properly authorize physical therapy treatments from the original doctor. However, the court upheld the earlier judge's decision to deny a separate penalty for treatments from another doctor (Dr. Gunderson) and refused to award temporary disability benefits for an earlier time period. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling shows that workers' compensation insurance companies can face financial penalties when they improperly deny or delay medical treatment authorizations. Workers have the right to receive approved medical care promptly. However, the case also demonstrates that winning every aspect of a workers' compensation dispute can be challenging. If you're having trouble getting medical treatment approved through workers' comp, document everything and consider seeking help from an attorney who specializes in workers' compensation cases.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.