What Do You Think?
In Louisiana, an employee’s false statement on an employment form about past medical conditions could lead to the forfeiture of his worker’s compensation benefits. A case involving a driver who fell backward while getting in his truck highlights what it takes for an employer to establish that the claim should be forfeited.
When the driver was hired in 2021, he completed a medical questionnaire. He answered “no” to the question asking whether he currently had or had ever suffered injuries to his back, neck, or hip.
Three months later, he fell at work and injured his head, neck, back, and hip. He filed a workers’ compensation claim. While investigating the claim his employer learned the claimant had been involved in earlier motor vehicle accidents, in 2018 and 2020, both of which caused neck and back injuries. The claimant acknowledged the accidents but explained that he had recovered after treatment. He said that he interpreted the questionnaire as asking whether he was currently suffering from those injuries. Two doctors concluded that his current injuries stemmed from the fall, not the past accidents.
Under Louisiana law, an employee may forfeit workers’ compensation benefits by providing false information on a pre-employment medical questionnaire. For forfeiture to occur, the employer must prove, in part, that the employee made an untruthful statement that directly related to the claimed medical condition and that the statement prejudiced the employer.
Did the claimant forfeit his workers’ compensation benefits?
A. Yes. The claimant falsely denied having previous neck and back injuries, and those were the same body parts involved in his workplace accident.
B. No. Even if the claimant made a false statement, the employer failed to establish that his answers directly related to his workplace accident.
If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Lucas v. Nola 1 Source Services, LLC, No. 2026-CA-0202 (La. Ct. App. 10/14/26).
The court acknowledged that the claimant’s answers appeared untruthful because he failed to acknowledge sustaining neck and back injuries in two previous accidents. But an inaccurate answer alone was insufficient to establish forfeiture.
Further, the employer failed to show that there was a direct relation between the false statement and the medical condition supporting the driver’s claim. A direct relation is established when the subsequent injury was inevitable or very likely to occur because of the presence of the pre-existing condition, the court explained. Here, at the time of the accident, the claimant had recovered from his previous injuries.
Also, the medical evidence did not establish a direct relationship between the two injuries or show the alleged false statement harmed the employer. “Both examining physicians attributed [the driver’s] current injuries to the fall from his truck rather than his earlier accidents,” the court said.
The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the claim was compensable.
