Dibler v. Highland Clinic

661 So. 2d 588, 1995 WL 567105
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 27, 1995
Docket27274-CA
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 588 (Dibler v. Highland Clinic) 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
Dibler v. Highland Clinic, 661 So. 2d 588, 1995 WL 567105 (La. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

661 So.2d 588 (1995)

Malisa B. DIBLER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HIGHLAND CLINIC, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 27274-CA.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

September 27, 1995.

*589 Wiener, Weiss, Madison & Howell by Larry Feldman, Jr., Shreveport, for appellant.

Hicks & Hubley by Craig O. Marcotte, Shreveport, for appellee.

Before MARVIN, C.J., and BROWN and WILLIAMS, JJ.

MARVIN, Chief Judge.

In this appeal of a judgment in a workers' compensation action, the employer, Highland Clinic, contends the WCHO was clearly wrong in awarding benefits on the finding that the claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome, tardy ulnar palsy and thoracic outlet syndrome were occupational diseases compensable under the w.c. law. LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1.

We affirm.

DISCUSSION

LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1 provides in part:

B. An occupational disease means only that disease or illness which is due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the particular trade, occupation, process, or employment in which the employee is exposed to such disease. Occupational disease shall include injuries due to work-related carpal tunnel syndrome...

Because claimant, Ms. Dibler, had worked for Highland Clinic less than one year before her problems arose, § D of LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1 casts her with this heightened burden of proof:

D. Any occupational disease as herein listed contracted by an employee while performing work for a particular employer in which he has been engaged for less than twelve months shall be presumed to be non-occupational and not to have been contracted in the course of and arising out of such employment, provided, however, that any such occupational disease so contracted within the twelve months' limitation as set out herein shall become compensable when the occupational disease shall have been proved to have been contracted during the course of the prior twelve months' employment by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. (Emphasis added).

See Willis v. Dry Creek Nutrition Services, 94-45 (La.App. 3d Cir. 6/1/94), 640 So.2d 708.

Whether plaintiff has a work-related occupational disease that is disabling presents a question of fact. Vargas v. Daniell Battery Mfg. Co., Inc., 93-1249 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/20/94), 636 So.2d 1194. In a w.c. case, as in other civil cases, the applicable standard of review is whether the hearing officer's findings of fact are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530 (La. 1/14/94), 630 So.2d 733; Bruno v. Harbert Intern., Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La.1992).

Dibler's employment with Highland Clinic began on June 11, 1990. She worked as an *590 assistant to Dr. James Batte, an oral surgeon, for 11 days before going on a two-week vacation she had already planned with her family. She returned to work as an oral surgeon's assistant on July 5, 1990.

Dibler's duties as Dr. Batte's assistant included repetitive motions with her right arm during surgeries. Dibler testified that she assisted Dr. Batte in 167 surgeries, a daily average of less than four surgeries. While each surgery took from 15 to 30 minutes, Ms. Dibler manually cleaned instruments, developed x-rays, performed administrative duties and cared for patients during the remainder of her work day.

On August 1, 1990, Dibler consulted Dr. Don Burt, orthopedic surgeon, telling him that she had been experiencing pain and tingling in her right hand for approximately two weeks. Dr. Burt saw Dibler again on August 15, 1990. On his findings and the history related to him by Dibler, Dr. Burt concluded that Dibler was suffering from work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Burt testified that he assumed (albeit erroneously) that Dibler performed secretarial work involving a lot of typing. He further stated that he had no basis for his statement in a medical report that Dibler's carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by her employment except for what Dibler herself told him. Dr. Burt testified that he did not have sufficient information to determine the cause of Dibler's carpal tunnel syndrome. Ms. Dibler then saw an orthopedist specializing in the hand who diagnosed Ms. Dibler with tardy ulnar palsy and thoracic outlet syndrome on August 17, two days after she last saw Dr. Burt. Dr. Burt recalled an instance where an automobile worker handling some extremely strong tongs developed carpal tunnel syndrome in a period of 24 hours from repetitive motion. Upon being told that Ms. Dibler was a dental assistant, Dr. Burt noted that that was one of the occupations that will cause carpal tunnel syndrome.

After seeing Dr. Burt, Ms. Dibler consulted Dr. Marion Milstead, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in the hand, who first examined her on August 17, 1990. Dr. Milstead agreed with Dr. Burt's diagnosis of Dibler's condition as carpal tunnel syndrome while making the additional diagnoses of tardy ulnar palsy and thoracic outlet syndrome. Dr. Milstead opined that all three conditions were work related. The employer emphasizes in its argument that Dr. Milstead made no inquiry into Dibler's work history, did not determine the short length of time that she had been employed at Highland Clinic, and did not know the nature of Dibler's exact responsibilities. Dr. Milstead initially assumed she served Dr. Batte, who was also a dentist, as a dental assistant. Dr. Batte opined that a dental assistant's work is more intense and of longer duration, about eight hours each work day, than the work of an oral surgeon's assistant. Notwithstanding the employer's cross-examination, Dr. Milstead's opinion that the cause of each of her afflictions was work related was not enervated or changed.

Ms. Dibler last worked for Dr. Batte on August 22. Dr. Milstead performed right carpal tunnel release surgery on Dibler on August 23, 1990. After Dibler returned to work at Highland Clinic on September 24, 1990, as a float nurse she continued to experience problems with her right arm, elbow and hand during the next year. Surgeries (the tardy ulnar palsy release) on Dibler's elbow were performed in August 1991 and January 1992 by Dr. Milstead and his medical partner, Dr. Lewis Jones. Following these surgeries, Dibler was unable to return to work.

In October 1991, Dr. Milstead referred Dibler to Dr. Thomas Pressly, a rheumatologist. The employer also emphasizes Dr. Pressly's opinions that the shortest time he has seen carpal tunnel syndrome appear is after four months of a change in activity and that it was "very unlikely" that Dibler's problems were work related. The employer additionally emphasizes Dr. Pressly's "doubt" that her tardy ulnar palsy was work related and his explanation that it is "very difficult" to determine the cause of this affliction. Other portions of Dr. Pressly's opinions, such as Ms. Dibler having a pre-existing CTS condition that was aggravated and his deference to Dr. Milstead's opinion about causation, were emphasized by the WCHO.

*591 Dr. Lewis Jones, Dr. Milstead's partner, was asked, but declined, to give an opinion whether the cause of each of Ms. Dibler's problems was related to her work at the clinic, deferring instead to Dr. Milstead's opinion. The employer emphasizes in its argument that Dr. Jones said he did not consider tardy ulnar palsy to be an occupational disease in the absence of some specific trauma, and explained that he had never seen a case of nontraumatic tardy ulnar palsy that was caused by a person's employment.

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

Related

Doumite v. KVHP-FOX 29
884 So. 2d 1283 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Kerry Anderson Doumite v. Kvhp - Fox 29
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004
Dowell v. Ochsner Clinic of Baton Rouge
874 So. 2d 852 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Hurst v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
846 So. 2d 954 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
Davies v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
830 So. 2d 462 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
Killett v. Sanderson Farms
818 So. 2d 853 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
Stuart v. New City Diner
758 So. 2d 345 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2000)
O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc.
737 So. 2d 31 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1999)
Crotwell v. Holloway Sportswear
740 So. 2d 748 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1999)
Hoy v. Gilbert
714 So. 2d 74 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1998)
Gilliam v. Manhattan/Whitaker Const. Co.
714 So. 2d 101 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1998)
Maurer v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.
693 So. 2d 1290 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Oliveaux v. Riverside Nursing Home
691 So. 2d 340 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
O'REGAN v. Number One Cleaners
690 So. 2d 103 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Dvorak v. MELVIN JONES FRAM. CONTRACTORS
688 So. 2d 94 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Balsamo v. Jones
685 So. 2d 1140 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
661 So. 2d 588, 1995 WL 567105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dibler-v-highland-clinic-lactapp-1995.