LeDoux v. Robinson

568 So. 2d 244, 1990 WL 145792
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 3, 1990
Docket89-468
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 568 So. 2d 244 (LeDoux v. Robinson) 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
LeDoux v. Robinson, 568 So. 2d 244, 1990 WL 145792 (La. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

568 So.2d 244 (1990)

John LeDOUX, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Kenneth ROBINSON and American Casualty Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 89-468.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

October 3, 1990.

Scofield, Gerard, Veron, Hoskins & Soileau, John Pohorelsky, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.

Plauche, Smith & Nieset, A.R. Johnson, IV, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants.

Before DOMENGEAUX, C.J., and FORET and KNOLL, JJ.

FORET, Judge.

This is a worker's compensation action filed by John LeDoux against his employer, Kenneth Robinson, and his insurer, American Casualty Insurance Company (American Casualty). The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, reinstating weekly compensation benefits and awarding penalties and attorney's fees. Additionally, the trial court ordered defendants to pay the cost of certain diagnostic tests recommended by plaintiff's physicians. Defendants have appealed the trial court's judgment and plaintiff has answered the appeal, requesting an increase in the trial court's award of attorney's fees.

FACTS

On August 29, 1986, plaintiff injured his neck while working for defendant, Kenneth *245 Robinson, in his farming operations. The injury occurred while plaintiff was lifting a tool box weighing approximately seventy-five pounds. Although plaintiff felt pain immediately in his shoulder and neck area, he continued to work for Robinson for another four or five days before seeking medical attention. Additionally, plaintiff was treated by Dr. Violet Long, a chiropractor, for approximately two weeks. Thereafter, plaintiff consulted Dr. A.C. Broussard, who referred him to Dr. Gerald Litel, a neurosurgeon, for further treatment.

Plaintiff first saw Dr. Litel on October 22, 1986, complaining of pain in the mid and upper portions of his back, neck pain, and pain radiating into his left arm. Thereafter, Dr. Litel hospitalized plaintiff at St. Patrick's Hospital in Lake Charles on November 23, 1986. A cervical myelogram was performed, which revealed a herniated disc at C7-T1. Accordingly, Dr. Litel performed a cervical laminectomy on November 25, 1986, and plaintiff was released from the hospital on November 27, 1986.

Following the surgery, Dr. Litel continued to treat plaintiff on a regular basis until March 25, 1987, at which time he released plaintiff to return to work without any limitations. However, Dr. Litel did assign a 15% partial permanent disability to plaintiff as a result of the injury and surgery.

Despite having been released by Dr. Litel, plaintiff continued to complain of neck and shoulder pain as well as pain radiating into his left arm. Plaintiff consulted an attorney who arranged for him to see Dr. R. Dale Bernauer, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Lake Charles. Plaintiff first saw Dr. Bernauer on April 29, 1987. At this time, Dr. Bernauer noted a decreased range of motion. He further stated that he conducted a neurological examination which revealed decreased reflexes in the left arm. Dr. Bernauer's preliminary diagnosis was recurrent disc herniation at C7-T1, and he recommended that plaintiff undergo an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in order to confirm this diagnosis. Dr. Bernauer's opinions in this regard were set forth in his medical report directed to plaintiff's attorney, dated May 4, 1987.

Thereafter, by letter from defendants' attorney dated August 13, 1987, Dr. Litel was asked to review Dr. Bernauer's medical report of May 4, 1987 and state his views with regard to Dr. Bernauer's diagnosis and recommendations. By letter dated August 26, 1987, Dr. Litel disagreed strongly with Dr. Bernauer's diagnosis and reaffirmed his earlier position that plaintiff should be able to return to his usual occupation without difficulty. However, on December 7, 1987, Dr. Litel examined plaintiff in order to render an opinion as to the cause of plaintiff's continued complaints of pain. At this time, Dr. Litel acknowledged that he may have been wrong in categorically stating that plaintiff does not have a recurrent herniation and he suggested that plaintiff undergo another myelogram in order to make a definitive diagnosis. On the basis of Dr. Litel's recommendations, American Casualty reinstated worker's compensation benefits retroactive to April 1, 1987, and authorized payment for additional diagnostic tests, including the MRI recommended by Dr. Bernauer, as well as the myelogram suggested by Dr. Litel. These tests were conducted in January of 1988, and both the MRI and the myelogram were normal. At this point, unable to determine the cause of plaintiff's continued complaints, Dr. Bernauer referred plaintiff to Dr. William Foster, a neurosurgeon, who first examined plaintiff on March 8, 1988. According to Dr. Foster, plaintiff complained of headaches, paresthesia and weakness of the left arm, as well as left arm pain which appeared to follow the ulnar nerve distribution. While Dr. Foster was unable to render a definitive diagnosis, he theorized that plaintiff may be suffering from any one of the following: a. stretch injury of the brachial plexus, b. failed neck syndrome, c. thoracic outlet syndrome. He recommended that plaintiff undergo a CT scan of the head, as well as an EMG of the left upper extremity. Dr. Foster's findings and recommendations are contained in his report issued to plaintiff's counsel dated March 18, 1988.

*246 Upon receiving Dr. Foster's March 18, 1988 report, counsel for defendants forwarded a copy of same to Dr. Litel, together with the results of the MRI and myelogram studies performed earlier in the year, and requested Dr. Litel's opinion with regard to Dr. Foster's findings and recommendations. Dr. Litel responded by letter dated May 13, 1988, advising defendants' attorney that he did not feel that plaintiff had any of the conditions listed in Dr. Foster's report of March 18, 1988. He further stated that he did not feel that any additional tests were indicated and reiterated his position that plaintiff was capable of returning to normal activity.

On the basis of Dr. Litel's report, American Casualty terminated weekly compensation benefits effective May 18, 1988, and refused payment for any additional tests.

After reviewing the evidence adduced at trial, the trial court held as follows:

a. Defendants were held liable for statutory penalties and attorney's fees for terminating benefits on May 18, 1988, which attorney's fees were fixed at the sum of $2,500.
b. Plaintiff's worker's compensation benefits were reinstated effective May 18, 1988.
c. Defendants were ordered to pay for the left upper extremity EMG and CAT scan recommended by Dr. Foster and Dr. Bernauer.

On appeal, defendants assign the following errors:

1. The trial court erred in finding defendants liable for penalties and attorney's fees for terminating benefits on May 18, 1988.
2. The trial court erred in ordering defendants to reinstate worker's compensation benefits from May 18, 1988.
3. The trial court erred in ordering defendants to pay for the left upper extremity EMG and CAT scan recommended by Dr. Foster and Dr. Bernauer.
4. The trial court erred in ordering defendants to pay legal interest on the above and court costs.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

In their first assignment of error, defendants complain that the trial court erred in finding that the defendants were liable for penalties and attorney's fees for terminating worker's compensation benefits on May 18, 1988. We agree. Upon receipt of Dr.

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

Related

Jasper v. Memorial Medical Center
853 So. 2d 21 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
McCrary v. New Orleans Health Corp.
798 So. 2d 1085 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Fritz v. Home Furniture-Lafayette
677 So. 2d 1132 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
Walker v. Halliburton Services, Inc.
654 So. 2d 365 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
Belaire v. L & L OIL CO.
636 So. 2d 1177 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)
Lake Charles Dodge v. LeBlanc
640 So. 2d 358 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)
Chevalier v. LH Bossier, Inc.
617 So. 2d 1278 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Ratcliff v. Brandt Glass, Inc.
618 So. 2d 500 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
568 So. 2d 244, 1990 WL 145792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ledoux-v-robinson-lactapp-1990.