Elizabeth Soileau v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Summary

The court held that the employee’s motion to compel Wal-Mart to permit use of a non-Wal-Mart pharmacy was premature because the motion did not allege that Wal-Mart had failed to furnish proper medical attention, as required for initiating a claim. The court also held that the motion presented no justiciable controversy because the asserted injury depended on hypothetical future harm rather than an actual dispute. It vacated the court of appeal’s judgment and reinstated the workers’ compensation judge’s dismissal of the motion.