Chatelain v. American Can Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Chatelain v. American Can Co.

387 So. 2d 670, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4262

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 10, 1980

DocketNo. 10984

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 387 So. 2d 670 (Chatelain v. American Can Co.) 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

Chatelain v. American Can Co., 387 So. 2d 670, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4262 (La. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal, on exception of no cause of action, of his suit against his corporate employer for damages, alleging that noise at his employment caused him a partial hearing loss and hypersensitivity to loud noises.

Accepting plaintiff’s petition’s allegations as true, his petition would state a cause of action for workers’ compensation and it might therefore be argued that the judgment appealed from is not wholly correct. However, the context is that plaintiff has already tried and lost a suit for workers’ compensation, 344 So.2d 1180, this court finding that he did not prove his hearing problems were caused by his work environment. Thus, insofar as the petition is viewed as stating a cause of action for workers’ compensation, defendant’s exception of res judicata would require its dismissal. And, to the extent that plaintiff seeks any recovery other than workers’ compensation, he does not state a cause of action because of the exclusivity of workers’ compensation, R.S. 23:1032.

Affirmed.

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

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal, on exception of no cause of action, of his suit against his corporate employer for damages, alleging that noise at his employment caused him a partial hearing loss and hypersensitivity to loud noises.

Accepting plaintiff’s petition’s allegations as true, his petition would state a cause of action for workers’ compensation and it might therefore be argued that the judgment appealed from is not wholly correct. However, the context is that plaintiff has already tried and lost a suit for workers’ compensation, 344 So.2d 1180, this court finding that he did not prove his hearing problems were caused by his work environment. Thus, insofar as the petition is viewed as stating a cause of action for workers’ compensation, defendant’s exception of res judicata would require its dismissal. And, to the extent that plaintiff seeks any recovery other than workers’ compensation, he does not state a cause of action because of the exclusivity of workers’ compensation, R.S. 23:1032.

Affirmed.

James Clifford Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W Marvin Jack Barnett, Jr. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W Kenneth Noel Bain, Sr. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W George Emory Butler v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W W.H. Auttonberrt v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W Jimmie Dewayne Baugh v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W Melvin Ellis Bordelon v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2015

Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp.

70 So. 3d 885 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011)

O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc.

737 So. 2d 31 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1999)

LeBlanc v. Consolidated Aluminum Co.

433 So. 2d 361 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1983)

Chatelain v. American Can Co.

394 So. 2d 275 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 So. 2d 670, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatelain-v-american-can-co-lactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack