Bercegeay v. Coastal Production Services

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Bercegeay v. Coastal Production Services

835 So. 2d 777, 2002 La. App. LEXIS 3443, 2002 WL 31667658

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 8, 2002

DocketNo. 2001 CA 2318

StatusPublished

This text of 835 So. 2d 777 (Bercegeay v. Coastal Production Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bercegeay v. Coastal Production Services, 835 So. 2d 777, 2002 La. App. LEXIS 3443, 2002 WL 31667658 (La. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

FITZSIMMONS, J.

In this workers’ compensation case, the plaintiff, Everette Bercegeay, alleged that he was injured in a work accident. He sued his employer, Coastal Production Services (Coastal), for benefits. The workers’ compensation judge made a credibility determination based on the testimony of two witnesses who were present at the scene of the alleged accident, but did not work for Coastal. Both witnesses denied that an accident occurred, and disputed Mr. Becegeay’s account of the alleged accident. Based on her credibility determinations, and various significant contradictions throughout the medical record, the workers’ compensation judge found that Mr. Bercegeay did not meet his burden to prove that an accident occurred at work. The claim was dismissed. Mr. Bercegeay appealed.¹

[778]*778A workers’ compensation claimant seeking benefits must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an employment accident occurred and that it had a causal relationship to the disability. If the evidence leaves the probabilities evenly balanced, the claimant fails in his burden. Harvey v. Bogalusa Concrete, Inc., 97-2945, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/25/98), 719 So.2d 1130, 1131. On appeal, we review the record in its entirety to determine whether the workers’ compensation judge’s factual findings were clearly wrong. Only upon a finding of manifest or clear error will the judge’s findings be disturbed. Sanders v. Grace Nursing Home, 98-1344, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/24/99), 754 So.2d 1024, 1026, writ denied, 99-3090 (La.1/7/00), 752 So.2d 868; Harvey v. Bogalusa Concrete, Inc., 97-2945 at p. 3, 719 So.2d at 1132.

After a thorough review of the record, we see no manifest or clear error in the findings of the workers’ compensation judge, or legal error in the judgment of ^dismissal. Mr. Bercegeay failed to meet his burden of proof on whether he sustained an employment accident. Therefore, we affirm. The costs of the appeal are assessed to plaintiff, Mr. Bercegeay.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FITZSIMMONS, J.

In this workers’ compensation case, the plaintiff, Everette Bercegeay, alleged that he was injured in a work accident. He sued his employer, Coastal Production Services (Coastal), for benefits. The workers’ compensation judge made a credibility determination based on the testimony of two witnesses who were present at the scene of the alleged accident, but did not work for Coastal. Both witnesses denied that an accident occurred, and disputed Mr. Becegeay’s account of the alleged accident. Based on her credibility determinations, and various significant contradictions throughout the medical record, the workers’ compensation judge found that Mr. Bercegeay did not meet his burden to prove that an accident occurred at work. The claim was dismissed. Mr. Bercegeay appealed.¹

[778]*778A workers’ compensation claimant seeking benefits must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an employment accident occurred and that it had a causal relationship to the disability. If the evidence leaves the probabilities evenly balanced, the claimant fails in his burden. Harvey v. Bogalusa Concrete, Inc., 97-2945, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/25/98), 719 So.2d 1130, 1131. On appeal, we review the record in its entirety to determine whether the workers’ compensation judge’s factual findings were clearly wrong. Only upon a finding of manifest or clear error will the judge’s findings be disturbed. Sanders v. Grace Nursing Home, 98-1344, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/24/99), 754 So.2d 1024, 1026, writ denied, 99-3090 (La.1/7/00), 752 So.2d 868; Harvey v. Bogalusa Concrete, Inc., 97-2945 at p. 3, 719 So.2d at 1132.

After a thorough review of the record, we see no manifest or clear error in the findings of the workers’ compensation judge, or legal error in the judgment of ^dismissal. Mr. Bercegeay failed to meet his burden of proof on whether he sustained an employment accident. Therefore, we affirm. The costs of the appeal are assessed to plaintiff, Mr. Bercegeay.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 777, 2002 La. App. LEXIS 3443, 2002 WL 31667658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bercegeay-v-coastal-production-services-lactapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack