Injured security guard entitled to supplemental income benefits
Lake Charles LA Dec 5 2020 A security guard who was injured by a psychiatric patient while on duty is entitled to supplemental earning benefits and penalties, an appellate court ruled Wednesday.
In Landry v. Lofton Security Service Inc., the Louisiana Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, in Lake Charles reversed a workers compensation judge’s ruling denying additional benefits to the guard. The appellate court held that the guard showed he was unable to earn his pre-injury wages.
Robert Landry worked as an unarmed security guard for Lofton Security Service. On Oct. 4, 2017, while stationed in the Opelousas General Hospital in Opelousas, Louisiana, he injured his shoulder while protecting staff from a psychiatric patient.
He was diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear that required surgery but was not released back to work as a security guard because another altercation could further damage his shoulder.
In 2018, Mr. Landry filed a disputed claim for supplemental earning benefits against Lofton and its workers comp carrier, Zurich American Insurance Co. In 2019, a workers compensation judge denied his claims for medical and indemnity benefits.
Mr. Landry appealed, contending his shoulder injury prevented him from returning to his previous security position and that there was no comparable work available to him within his reasonable geographic area.
The appellate court reversed the workers comp judge’s decision, noting that a Lofton supervisor confirmed that Mr. Landry’s prior security work would exceed the restrictions assigned by his physician — not only because of the potential for physical engagement but also due to occasional lifting requirements of 50 pounds.
The court held that the judge was “manifestly wrong” in his decision that Mr. Landry failed to show he was unable to earn 90% of his pre-injury wages, and determined that Mr. Landry was entitled to supplemental earning benefits of $240 per week beginning from the date his benefits were discontinued.
Although the court did not find the actions of the employer or insurer to be “arbitrary and capricious,” it did issue a penalty of $2,000 for the discontinuance of the benefits and awarded $10,000 in attorney fees to Mr. Landry.
