GOURGUES v. Pate

30 So. 3d 283
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 10, 2010
Docket2009 CA 1107
StatusPublished

This text of 30 So. 3d 283 (GOURGUES v. Pate) 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
GOURGUES v. Pate, 30 So. 3d 283 (La. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

FRANCES GOURGUES ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, TIFFANY GOURGUES,
v.
BRANDON PATE, LAURA PATE AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 2009 CA 1107.

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit.

February 10, 2010.
Not Designated for Publication

KRIS A. PERRET, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee, Tiffany Gourgues.

C. SHANNON HARDY, Penny & Hardy, Attorney for Defendants-Appellants, Brandon Pate, Laura Pate, and Allstate Insurance Company.

Before: PARRO, KUHN, and McDONALD, JJ.

PARRO, J.

Brandon Pate, Laura Pate, and Allstate Insurance Company (the defendants) appeal an award of damages to Tiffany Gourgues for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident. Finding no manifest error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On the night of February 21, 2003, eighteen-year-old Brandon was driving his mother Laura's car, which was insured by Allstate. Tiffany, fourteen years old at the time,[1] was the front-seat passenger; there were also two other teenage passengers. Brandon was traveling westbound on Louisiana Highway 75 and drove into Grand Bayou after failing to stop at a "T" intersection. Tiffany and all the other occupants of the vehicle had to swim out of the car. In her suit against the defendants, Tiffany claimed the accident caused injuries to her wrist, head, neck, and shoulders, as well as psychological problems. After a bench trial, the court awarded Tiffany $20,000 in general damages and $5,404.30 in medical expenses for injuries it found were causally related to the accident. This appeal followed.

The defendants contend that the evidence shows that most of the injuries Tiffany suffered were totally unrelated to the automobile accident. Therefore, they claim it was manifest error for the trial court to conclude that Tiffany met her burden of proof with respect to her medical injuries, expenses, and damages. Specifically, they are challenging medical causation in this case.

APPLICABLE LAW

Cause-in-fact is a factual question to be determined by the fact finder and, thus, is subject to the manifest error standard of review. Paul v. Louisiana State Employees' Group Ben. Program, 99-0897 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/12/00), 762 So.2d 136, 142-43. The two-part test for the appellate review of a trial court's factual finding is: 1) whether there is a reasonable factual basis in the record for the finding of the trier of fact; and 2) whether the record further establishes that the finding is not manifestly erroneous. Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120,1127 (La. 1987). Thus, if there is no reasonable factual basis in the record for the trier of fact's finding, no additional inquiry is necessary to conclude there was manifest error. However, if a reasonable factual basis exists, an appellate court may set aside a factual finding only if, after reviewing the record in its entirety, it determines the factual finding was clearly wrong. See Stobart v. State, through Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993); Moss v. State, 07-1686 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/8/08), 993 So.2d 687, 693, writ denied, 08-2166 (La. 11/14/08), 996 So.2d 1092. When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error/clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact, for only the fact finder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding and belief in what is said. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). Reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review. Lockett v. State. Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 03-1767 (La. 2/25/04), 869 So.2d 87, 95.

ANALYSIS

The evidence consisted of testimony from the investigating officer and Tiffany, along with copies of her medical records. The investigating officer testified that none of the occupants of the vehicle complained of injuries at the accident scene.

However, the day after the accident, Tiffany was examined at River West Medical Center for an injured wrist, which was diagnosed as a sprain. She was advised to wear an Ace bandage and to take Motrin for pain. The emergency room records from this visit do not reflect any other complaints.

In March 2003, she began counseling with Luis O. Campos, LCSW, for mood swings, episodes of anxiety, panic-like behavior during car rides, and nightmares that had begun after the accident. He diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the accident, and referred her to a physician who prescribed an anti-depressant. Her symptoms abated somewhat when she took the anti-depressant. She continued counseling sessions with Campos until October 2003.

Although she was treated during the ten months following the accident for various unrelated illnesses by Dr. Michael Quinn, her pediatrician, and for adjustments to her braces by Dr. John Harbour, her orthodontist, their records show that she did not complain to either of them about accident-related problems during that period. Dr. Harbour's notes from September 2004 indicate that she reported headaches and TMJ symptoms in her neck and jaw, all of which had existed "since wreck" 18-24 months earlier. He referred her to Dr. Glenn Kidder for further evaluation and treatment.

In January 2004, she began seeing Dr. William Cherry at Metropolitan Health Center, complaining that after the accident, she had headaches, neck pain, and back pain. His examination showed some muscle spasm in the neck, some tenderness in the thoracic region, and mild bilateral muscle spasm in the lumbar region. He did x-rays of her neck, back, and shoulders, and a CT scan of her head. Dr. Cherry provided medications and physical therapy over the course of ten months for her back and neck problems, and noted in July that both of her temporomandibular joints showed some possible tenderness to the left with popping and clicking. He recommended she confer with her orthodontist concerning these TMJ symptoms, and in October 2004, Dr. Cherry released her to the care of Dr. Harbour for treatment of TMJ.

Dr. Glenn Kidder, who specializes in treatment of this disorder, examined her on March 15, 2005, at which time Tiffany was complaining of bilateral jaw joint and facial pain, exhaustion, jaw fatigue when eating, headaches and neck aches, and clenching and grinding of her teeth. His notes reflect that the onset of these problems was the accident in February 2003, noting that "mother said the left side of her head and face and under left eye were bruised." He further noted that she experienced some of the jaw symptoms within a month after the accident, and that they became worse over time, eventually resulting in Dr. Cherry's referral to Dr. Harbour, who referred her to him. Dr. Kidder's examination confirmed that she had TMJ; he treated her by filing down the points of some of her teeth, referring her to physical therapy, and providing her with a mouth splint to be worn every night. His records show treatments continued until October 2005.

Tiffany testified that she hit her head and face in the accident and also suffered pain in her wrist and body aches all over. She wore a wrist brace for about a week and, although she said she was supposed to wear it longer, she took it off so she could play softball. Although she taped her wrist for practices and games, it continued to be problematic whenever she played. Tiffany also said that several weeks after the accident, she began seeing a psychotherapist, Luis Campos, who counseled her for anxiety and nightmares caused by the accident. She testified that the emotional effects of the accident continued for six months to a year before they abated.

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

Related

Stobart v. State Through DOTD
617 So. 2d 880 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1993)
Lockett v. STATE, DOTD
869 So. 2d 87 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2004)
Paul v. LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEES'GROUP
762 So. 2d 136 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2000)
Rosell v. Esco
549 So. 2d 840 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1989)
Mart v. Hill
505 So. 2d 1120 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 So. 3d 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gourgues-v-pate-lactapp-2010.