Juanita G. Guilbeaux v. Office of the District Attorney
This text of Juanita G. Guilbeaux v. Office of the District Attorney (Juanita G. Guilbeaux v. Office of the District Attorney) 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.
Opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
07-89
JUANITA G. GUILBEAUX
VERSUS
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
**********
APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 4 PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 02-09330 SAM L. LOWERY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE
OSWALD A. DECUIR JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Oswald A. Decuir, and Marc T. Amy, Judges.
Saunders, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
AFFIRMED.
Mark Ackal Mark Ackal & Associates P. O. Box 52045 Lafayette, LA 70505 (337) 237-5500 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Office of the District Attorney
Harry K. Burdette The Glenn Armentor Law Corporation 300 Stewart Street Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 233-1471 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Juanita G. Guilbeaux DECUIR, Judge.
Claimant appeals a judgment of the workers’ compensation judge finding that
she failed to establish a work-related injury and denying benefits.
FACTS
Juanita Guilbeaux worked as a secretary for the Lafayette Office of the District
Attorney. On July 9, 2002, she allegedly sustained an injury to her back when lifting
up on a file drawer that was stuck. Guilbeaux mentioned to her supervisor that she
had pulled her back, but declined to file a report because the pull was like similar
incidents she had experienced over the years arising out of a previous car accident.
A week after the alleged accident, Guilbeaux went to her regular physician, Dr. Chi
Vu Pham, for her annual examination. Dr. Pham gave a cortisone injection and
ordered an MRI. The MRI came back within normal limits and the cortisone
injection failed to help with Guilbeaux’s subjective complaints of pain.
Subsequently, Dr. Pham administered another cortisone injection, ordered physical
therapy and suggested that Guilbeaux see an orthopedist.
Guilbeaux consulted the yellow pages and selected Dr. John Cobb. Around the
same time, she consulted an attorney and filed a report on the alleged accident with
her employer. Dr. Cobb reviewed the original MRI and concluded there were subtle
signs of abnormality. In addition, Dr. Cobb noted some objective findings in the mid-
back region and suggested surgery for what appeared to be anterior column failure.
Guilbeaux was not interested in surgery so Dr. Cobb referred her for pain
management. The compensation carrier asked that Guilbeaux return to Dr. Cobb for
an evaluation, and Dr. Cobb ordered another MRI. Dr. Cobb stated that in his
opinion the MRI revealed minimal disc bulge and small disc herniation.
The workers’ compensation carrier asked that Guilbeaux see Dr. Gregory
Gidman for another opinion. Dr. Gidman found that there were no objective signs of injury, Guilbeaux was at maximum medical improvement and could return to work,
and that 4 of 5 Waddel’s were positive for a psychological basis for the complaints.
Based on the conflict in the findings between Dr. Cobb and Dr. Gidman, the carrier
asked the court to approve an independent medical examination.
Dr. Angela Mayeaux conducted the IME and found no objective findings,
Guilbeaux was at MMI, X-rays were normal, and Guilbeaux could return to work.
The defendant paid indemnity benefits from July 17, 2002 through February 12, 2004.
After hearing the evidence, the workers’ compensation judge denied benefits
based on Guilbeaux’s failure to establish a work-related injury. Guilbeaux lodged
this appeal.
WORK-RELATED INJURY
Guilbeaux contends on appeal that the workers’ compensation judge erred in
finding that she had failed to established she had sustained a work-related injury. We
disagree.
The claimant seeking workers’ compensation benefits must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that she was injured in an accident in the course and
scope of her employment. Burns v. Beauregard Nursing Ctr., 94-131 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/5/94), 643 So.2d 443. The injured employee’s testimony alone may be enough to
meet the burden of proof as long as 1) no other evidence contradicts the employee’s
version of the accident, and 2) the testimony is corroborated by circumstances
following the alleged incident. Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La.1992).
If the employee’s testimony contains inconsistencies and discrepancies, then the
injured employee’s testimony alone will not be enough to prove his injury occurred
on the job. Harris v. General Motors, 577 So.2d 1160 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1991).
2 In addition, the claimant must also establish a causal link between the accident
and the subsequent disabling condition. Marks v. 84 Lumber Co., 00-322 (La.App.
3 Cir. 10/11/00), 771 So.2d 751. If the evidence leaves the probabilities of causation
equally balanced, the claimant has failed to carry her burden of proof. Bernard v.
O’Leary Bros. Signs, Inc., 606 So.2d 1331 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992).
The trial court’s determinations with regard to the credibility of witnesses and
the discharge of the claimant’s burden of proof are factual issues and should not be
disturbed on appeal in the absence of manifest error. Bruno, 593 So.2d 357 The
workers’ compensation judge’s assessments of the weight of the medical evidence are
not to be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Chambers v. Louisiana Pac. Mfg., Inc.,
97-1188 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/22/98), 712 So.2d 608. Furthermore, where there is a
conflict in testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences
of fact should not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous. Novak v. Texada, Miller,
Masterson & Davis Clinic, 514 So.2d 524 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 515 So.2d
807 (La.1987).
In this case, Guilbeaux did not report a work-related injury at the alleged time
of the accident. There is no corroborating evidence from her co-workers. The
preponderance of the medical evidence does not support her claim. She has
longstanding back problems. Under these circumstances, in this admittedly close
case, we cannot say that the workers’ compensation judge was clearly wrong in
concluding that Guilbeaux failed to prove that she sustained a work-related injury.
Our resolution of the previous assignment of error renders the remaining
assignments of error advanced by Guilbeaux moot.
3 DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the workers’ compensation judge
is affirmed. All costs of these proceedings are taxed to appellant, Juanita Guilbeaux.
4 NUMBER WCA 07-89
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SAUNDERS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
I feel that there is uncontroverted evidence in the record that Ms. Guilbeaux did
have an accident at work. First, there is the testimony of Ms. Guilbeaux that she had
an accident at work. Further, and I feel very significantly, Ms. Guilbeaux testified
that she reported an accident to her supervisor, Ms. Pat Delahoussaye, on that date.
While Ms. Delahoussaye did not testify, she was included on the defendant’s pre-trial
statement as a witness. Her failure to testify would warrant a presumption in favor of
Ms. Guilbeaux. At any rate, since Ms. Guilbeaux’s testimony is uncontroverted, and,
therefore, it should be taken as proven.
Other evidence that Ms. Guilbeaux did indeed have an accident include Ms.
Guilbeaux reporting her back pain to her family physician, Dr. Pham, within a week
of the alleged accident. Further, when Ms. Guilbeaux reported to Dr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Juanita G. Guilbeaux v. Office of the District Attorney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juanita-g-guilbeaux-v-office-of-the-district-attorney-lactapp-2007.