Written by: Brennan Smith
Compensability and the “identifiable accident” requirement
The legislature has provided a clear — and notably narrow — definition in Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1021(1), which defines an accident as:
“An unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time of the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.”
In addition to the statute, there is also case law that applies the requirement for there to be an identifiable event. One such case is Weekly v. LWCC, 960 So. 2d 1057 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007). The claimant in this case suffered a back injury while he was on the job, and the Workers’ Compensation Court awarded him benefits. However, when the employer appealed this, the appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Judge made a mistake since the claimant was unable to identify single, precipitous event that directly and proximately caused his back condition. Specifically, Mr. Weekly stated that he did not do anything out of the ordinary to injure his back, and he never testified that his injury was related to an accident or a single event. Mr. Weekly never related to his treating physician any specific event that caused his back injury, and there was no evidence that Mr. Weekly’s condition was induced by sudden trauma.
Despite there being clear language in the statute, and case law to back it up, it is not always clear whether a compensable accident occurred. This is due to courts straying away from the rigid definition of an accident provided by the statute and using their own interpretations. There have been many cases where the courts have found there to be no need for an identifiable event for an accident to be compensable.
One such case is Rayborn v. Continental. Cement Co., LLC, 383 So. 3d 225 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2024). Here, the employee stated he injured his left knee as a result of repeated climbing and jumping while unloading cement from barges “all week long.” It was undisputed that Mr. Rayborn did not twist his knee or experience pain after a particular jump or maneuver while at work, nor did he slip and fall. Continental terminated benefits on the basis that Mr. Rayborn failed to identify a specific injury-causing accident. The court relied on multiple past cases and ultimately found that even though Mr. Rayborn could not identify a single “event” that caused his injury, he still suffered an “accident” under the statute.
As evidenced here, the Louisiana courts are willing to look beyond the statutory definition of an “accident” and look more to the specific facts in each particular case. As a result, the line between a compensable accident and a non-compensable one can become blurred. It is imperative to understand that the determination of whether an accident is compensable not only hinges on the statutory definition of an “accident.” Rather, one must also look to the specific facts at hand. If there is ever a question about whether there was an identifiable accident, don’t hesitate to contact your attorney to discuss the particular facts of your case.