Can Inaccurate Statements Cause You to Lose Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Benefits?

By Craig B. Mitchell and Kiana M. Mitchell | Mitchell & Associates, APLC

Inaccurate statements do not automatically require forfeiture of Louisiana workers’ compensation benefits. Under La. R.S. 23:1208, the employer must prove a false statement or representation, that it was willfully made, and that it was made for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits. In Mackel v. U-Haul Co. of Louisiana, the Fourth Circuit affirmed rejection of a fraud defense because the record supported the finding that the worker’s inaccuracies did not satisfy those requirements.

Mitchell & Associates represented Virdis Mackel at trial and on appeal. On June 9, 2026, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in his favor, including penalties and attorney fees against U-Haul. The parties subsequently settled the case. The settlement terms are not disclosed here.

An assault at work and a PTSD diagnosis

Mackel managed a U-Haul facility in Gretna. While he was handling a customer’s dispute over rental charges, the customer’s boyfriend punched him in the face. Mackel fell and struck his head on concrete. His broken glasses cut his eye and face. The opinion describes further threatening events before police arrived.

He sustained physical and psychological injuries and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He could not return to work because of his PTSD and treated with psychiatrist Dr. John MacGregor. As part of exposure therapy, the psychiatrist encouraged him to leave home for progressively greater distances and periods.

Why the employer alleged fraud

U-Haul investigated Mackel and learned that he had driven his girlfriend to work at the same facility where the assault occurred. It also identified inaccurate statements to his psychiatrist about his ability to leave home and his military history. After his deposition, U-Haul discontinued wage and medical benefits, including benefits supporting his psychiatric treatment.

U-Haul maintained that those statements violated La. R.S. 23:1208. After trial, the workers’ compensation judge ruled for Mackel and assessed penalties and attorney fees. U-Haul appealed both the rejection of its fraud defense and the penalties and fees.

What an employer must prove under the fraud statute

The appellate court explained that forfeiture is a harsh remedy and the statute must be strictly construed. The employer must establish all three elements:

• A false statement or representation.
• A statement made willfully, meaning knowingly and deliberately.
• A statement made for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits.

The court acknowledged that Mackel had made some inaccurate statements. The disputed question was whether he had made them willfully to obtain benefits. That distinction required review of the testimony and medical evidence, rather than treating every inconsistency as fraud.

Why the testimony and treatment context mattered

The workers’ compensation judge heard Mackel’s testimony and credited his explanations. He explained that when he described being unable to leave home, he meant going into public rather than remaining in his car. He acknowledged driving his girlfriend to work and entering the facility at times, while describing anxiety and occasions when he could not make the drive.

Dr. MacGregor knew Mackel sometimes left home and had encouraged those outings as treatment. He explained that PTSD symptoms could improve and then regress after a triggering event, and that patients could give differing accounts of events. Although he had not known the full frequency of the trips to U-Haul, he did not consider the activity necessarily inconsistent with what Mackel reported in therapy.

The military-history inaccuracies were also addressed. The trial judge found them inconsequential to the diagnosis because the psychiatrist had not relied on that history in diagnosing Mackel. The appellate court noted that the psychiatrist regarded the inaccurate history as significant, but did not identify its effect on the treatment plan.

What the other medical evaluations showed

Dr. Susan Andrews agreed with the PTSD diagnosis and concluded that Mackel was not faking his symptoms. She recommended continued psychiatric treatment without interruption.

Two evaluators retained by U-Haul, Dr. Kevin Bianchini and Dr. Richard Roniger, also agreed with the PTSD diagnosis. They disagreed with the treating psychiatrist’s approach and favored a return to a modified or different work setting. Dr. Bianchini did not find malingering. Another physician, Dr. Chad Domangue, questioned Mackel’s reporting and suggested malingering for litigation purposes.

The court considered the evidence together and found a reasonable factual basis for the trial judge’s rejection of fraudulent intent. The decision did not hold that every doctor agreed about treatment or that all questions about return to work had disappeared. It held that the trial court’s finding on the fraud defense was supported by the record.

Why the appellate standard mattered

Whether a worker violated La. R.S. 23:1208 is a factual question reviewed for manifest error. The appellate court asks whether the record provides a reasonable basis for the trial court’s finding and whether that finding is clearly wrong. When two permissible views of the evidence exist, the appellate court cannot simply substitute its preferred view.

In Mackel, the trial judge had heard the worker testify and found him credible. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the medical evidence and testimony reasonably supported that assessment, so it affirmed rejection of the fraud defense.

Why penalties and attorney fees were affirmed

The court separately considered La. R.S. 23:1201(I), which provides for penalties and reasonable attorney fees when benefits are discontinued arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause.

The Fourth Circuit emphasized that four of the five doctors who evaluated Mackel agreed he had PTSD and would benefit from further treatment. That group included two doctors retained by U-Haul. The court found that U-Haul had failed to present evidence justifying the cutoff and upheld the trial court’s penalties and attorney fees.

Losing a fraud defense does not automatically establish entitlement to penalties in every case. Mackel involved a separate review of the evidence concerning the decision to discontinue benefits.

What the result means for injured workers

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in Mackel’s favor. The case settled afterward. The opinion does not disclose the subsequent settlement or state its amount, and this article makes no claim about the settlement terms.

For a worker accused of fraud, the decision shows why the complete record matters. An activity may need to be evaluated in the context of prescribed treatment, symptoms that fluctuate, and the worker’s explanation. Medical disagreement alone is not a substitute for proving each element of fraud.

Workers should report symptoms and activities accurately, correct mistakes promptly, and preserve treatment instructions, medical records, and correspondence about any cutoff. If fraud is alleged, the specific statements and the employer’s evidence require careful review.

Common questions about fraud allegations and PTSD claims

Does an inaccurate statement automatically mean workers’ compensation fraud?

No. For forfeiture under La. R.S. 23:1208, the employer must prove that the false statement was willful and made for the purpose of obtaining benefits. The Mackel court acknowledged inaccuracies but affirmed the finding that fraudulent intent had not been established.

Can leaving home undermine a PTSD workers’ compensation claim?

Activity outside the home can be relevant evidence, but it must be considered in context. In Mackel, the psychiatrist had prescribed exposure therapy and encouraged outings. The worker’s explanations and medical evidence supported the trial judge’s finding. The decision does not mean that every outing is consistent with every claimed limitation.

Does disagreement about returning to work establish fraud?

Not by itself. In this case, doctors agreed about PTSD while disagreeing about treatment and return-to-work plans. The court examined whether the worker had deliberately made false statements to obtain benefits, which is a different question.

Can an employer face penalties for stopping benefits based on fraud allegations?

Yes, when the discontinuation meets the standard in La. R.S. 23:1201(I). In Mackel, the court affirmed penalties and attorney fees because the evidence supported the finding that the cutoff was arbitrary and capricious. An unsuccessful fraud defense alone does not decide that question.

Did the appellate court award a settlement?

No. The appellate court affirmed the workers’ compensation judgment. The parties later resolved the case by settlement. Those are separate events, and the settlement terms are not disclosed here.

Read the decision and discuss a benefit cutoff

Read the Fourth Circuit opinion in Mackel v. U-Haul.

If your Louisiana workers’ compensation benefits have been stopped following allegations of fraud, contact Mitchell & Associates, APLC in New Orleans to discuss your circumstances. Have the cutoff notice, disputed statements, and available medical records ready for review.

This article provides general information about a specific decision and is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case depends on its facts and applicable law.

Legal sources

Mackel v. U-Haul Co. of Louisiana, No. 2025-CA-0864 (La. App. 4 Cir. June 9, 2026): background pp. 1–3; fraud standard pp. 3–5; testimony and medical evidence pp. 5–8; penalties and decree pp. 8–9. The subsequent settlement is reported by counsel, not in the opinion.

La. R.S. 23:1208 — https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=83440. La. R.S. 23:1201(I), applied in the opinion at pp. 8–9.

Key authorities discussed in the opinion: Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 660 So.2d 7 (La. 1995); Cembell Industries, Inc. v. Smith, 414 So.3d 661 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2025); Stobart v. State, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993).

Too Hurt To Work™ in New Orleans? Start With the Right Information