Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Appeals court says compound cream for pain allowable

Reprints
appeal

An appeals court in Louisiana on Wednesday denied a seafood processing company’s appeal of a ruling that it had to pay for compound cream to treat a worker suffering from pain, finding that there was no evidence to show that the cream was not appropriate.

Bayou Shrimp Processors Inc. and its workers compensation insurer, Bridgefield Employers Insurance Co., appealed the ruling of a state Workers' Compensation Judge who approved a topical medication for Shelly Delahoussaye, finding it was "allowable without specific restrictions" under the state’s medical treatment guidelines, according to documents in Bayou Shrimp Processors, Inc. and Bridgefield Employers Insurance Company v. Shelly Delahoussaye, filed in the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, in Lake Charles.

Ms. Delahoussaye was “severely injured” in 2016 after being run over by and dragged underneath a forklift, according to documents that detail injuries to several body parts, all of which required surgery, according to documents.

In 2019, Ms. Delahoussaye's treating pain management physician filed a formal request to authorize a “Neuro Compound Cream,” which he testified was in line with treatment options for pain and has “led to improvements in function without opiates.” A claims adjustor denied the request. A medical director later that year approved the therapy, stating that the cream was in line with the state’s medical guidelines. 

On appeal, a workers compensation judge earlier this year ruled that the employer “did not meet their burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence” to overturn the medical director’s decision.

The state appellate court upheld that decision, writing that it found “no manifest error” in the judge’s ruling “that Petitioners failed to support their position with clear and convincing evidence necessary to overturn the Medical Director's Decision.”