Frame v. Majors

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Frame v. Majors

226 So. 2d 772, 254 La. 783, 1969 La. LEXIS 3440

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 8, 1969

DocketNo. 49954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 So. 2d 772 (Frame v. Majors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frame v. Majors, 226 So. 2d 772, 254 La. 783, 1969 La. LEXIS 3440 (La. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

.In re: Laura T- Frame, etc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 224 So.2d 65.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law.

FOURNET, C. J., and BARHAM, J.,

are of the opinion a writ should be granted in this case. The appellate court obviously failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

We agree the sting of the insect that occurred during the course of decedent’s employment did not cause the thrombosis from which he died. However, the facts clearly show, as testified to by defendant’s expert, Dr. Harvey, the stenosis from which the employee suffered at the time of the accident was aggravated by the “sting” to such an extent paralysis resulted, continuing until death. The operation that brought on the thrombosis that caused the death was performed to relieve the pressure on the affected artery, and, in this manner, to relieve the paralysis. In other words, the paralysis was the direct result of the accident and the operation undertaken to relieve the paralysis caused the thrombosis that resulted in the employee’s death. See, Behan v. John B. Honor Co., 143 La. 348, 78 So. 589, L.R.A. 1918 F., 862; Jackson v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 180 La. 43, 156 So. 169; Hemphill v. Tremont Lbr. Co., 209 La. 885, 25 So.2d 625; and Bertrand v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., 253 La. 1115, 221 So.2d 816.

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

.In re: Laura T- Frame, etc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 224 So.2d 65.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law.

FOURNET, C. J., and BARHAM, J.,

are of the opinion a writ should be granted in this case. The appellate court obviously failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

We agree the sting of the insect that occurred during the course of decedent’s employment did not cause the thrombosis from which he died. However, the facts clearly show, as testified to by defendant’s expert, Dr. Harvey, the stenosis from which the employee suffered at the time of the accident was aggravated by the “sting” to such an extent paralysis resulted, continuing until death. The operation that brought on the thrombosis that caused the death was performed to relieve the pressure on the affected artery, and, in this manner, to relieve the paralysis. In other words, the paralysis was the direct result of the accident and the operation undertaken to relieve the paralysis caused the thrombosis that resulted in the employee’s death. See, Behan v. John B. Honor Co., 143 La. 348, 78 So. 589, L.R.A. 1918 F., 862; Jackson v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 180 La. 43, 156 So. 169; Hemphill v. Tremont Lbr. Co., 209 La. 885, 25 So.2d 625; and Bertrand v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., 253 La. 1115, 221 So.2d 816.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 So. 2d 772, 254 La. 783, 1969 La. LEXIS 3440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frame-v-majors-la-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack