Minor v. J & J CARPET, INC.

40 So. 3d 434, 10 La.App. 3 Cir. 0045, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 858, 2010 WL 2178766
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 2, 2010
Docket10-0045
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 40 So. 3d 434 (Minor v. J & J CARPET, INC.) 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
Minor v. J & J CARPET, INC., 40 So. 3d 434, 10 La.App. 3 Cir. 0045, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 858, 2010 WL 2178766 (La. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

PETERS, J.

_jjThe defendant, J & J Carpet, Inc., appeals a workers’ compensation judgment *436 finding that the plaintiff, Robert Minor, was injured in a work-related accident and awarding him indemnity benefits, medical treatment, and penalties and attorney fees. Mr. Minor answered the appeal seeking an increase in the amount of attorney fees and attorney fees for work performed on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment and award Mr. Minor attorney fees for legal services rendered on appeal.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

Mr. Minor was employed as a granite fabricator and installer by J & J Carpet, Inc. (J & J), in Vidalia, Louisiana. On Friday, January 11, 2008, Mr. Minor felt a pop in his back and a sharp pain down to his feet after bending down to pick up a piece of granite. After telling his co-worker that he had injured his back, Mr. Minor went home. Because he experienced increasing pain and the loss of strength in his legs, Mr. Minor’s mother, Sandra Washington, took him to emergency rooms at two hospitals in Natchez, Mississippi, shortly after the accident. Mrs. Washington eventually contacted the partner of the Jackson, Mississippi neurosurgeon who had performed back surgery on Mr. Minor two years previously 1 , and was advised to bring her son to Jackson without delay. Mr. Minor eventually underwent back surgery on January 14, 2008, or three days after the accident.

Although Mr. Minor reported his injury to J & J on January 14 and requested that the matter be handled pursuant to workers’ compensation, his employer never provided him with medical treatment or indemnity benefits. J & J denied his claim on March 20, 2008, alleging that his injuries resulted from a deer hunting incident on |2the weekend prior to January 11, 2008, and not from an accident while in the course and scope of his employment.

Mr. Minor filed a disputed claim for compensation against J & J and its workers’ compensation administrator, Cannon Cochran Managements Services, Inc., seeking indemnity benefits, medical treatment, vocational rehabilitation, and penalties and attorney fees. Following a hearing on the merits, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) issued an oral ruling, which included findings that Mr. Minor suffered a work-related injury, that he was temporary and totally disabled and entitled to weekly indemnity benefits, and that he was entitled to penalties and attorney fees.

After the WCJ executed a written judgment, J & J appealed, asserting two assignments of error:

1) The workers’ compensation judge erred in finding that claimant had sufficiently met his burden of proving a work-related accident, as defined by the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act.
2) The workers’ compensation judge erred in finding that the defendant’s failure to pay temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses was arbitrary and capricious, thus entitling claimant to recover penalties and attorney fees.

Mr. Minor answered the appeal seeking an increase in the WCJ’s award of attorney fees, and requesting additional attorney fees for work performed on appeal.

OPINION

It is well settled that the standard of review applied in workers’ compen *437 sation cases is the “manifest error-clearly ■wrong” standard. Dean v. Southmark Constr., 03-1051, p. 7 (La.7/6/04), 879 So.2d 112, 117.

Accordingly, the findings of the OWC will not be set aside by a reviewing court unless they are found to be clearly wrong in light of the record viewed in its entirety. Alexander [v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698 (La.1/14/94) ], 630 So.2d [706,] 710. Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable |sinferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Robinson v. North American Salt Co., 02-1869 (La.App. 1 Cir.2003), 865 So.2d 98, 105. The court of appeal may not reverse the findings of the lower court even when convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Robinson, 865 So.2d at 105. The determination of whether injury occurred in the course and scope of employment is a mixed question of law and fact. Winkler v. Wadleigh Offshore, Inc., 01-1833 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/24/02), 817 So.2d 313, 316 (citing Wright v. Skate Country, Inc., 98-0217 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/12/99), 734 So.2d 874).

Id.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1021(1) defines an “accident” as an “unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” Proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La.1992). Thus, if the probability of causation is equally balanced based on the evidence presented, the employee has not carried his burden of proof. Guilbeaux v. Office of Dist. Attorney, 07-89 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/07), 957 So.2d 959.

A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of the incident; and (2) the worker’s testimony is corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged incident. West v. Bayou Vista Manor Inc., 371 So.2d 1146 (La.1979); Malone and Johnson, 13 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Workers’ Compensation, § 253 (2d Ed.1980). Corroboration of the worker’s testimony may be provided by testimony of fellow workers, spouses or friends. Malone and Johnson, supra; Nelson [v. Roadway Express, Inc., 588 So.2d 350 (La.1991) ]. Corroboration may also be provided by medical evidence. West, supra.
In determining whether the worker has discharged his or her burden of proof, the trial court should accept as true a witness’s uncontradicted testimony, although the witness is a party, absent “circumstances casting suspicion on the reliability of this testimony.” 14 West, 371 So.2d at 1147; Holiday v. Borden Chemical, 508 So.2d 1381, 1383 (La.1987).

Bruno, 593 So.2d at 361.

In the matter before us, Mr. Minor testified that on January 11, 2008, he was picking a piece of granite off the floor when he felt a pop in his back, which sent a sharp pain down to his feet. He immediately sat down and told his co-worker, Herbert Pahnka, that his back was hurting and he was ready to go home. Mr. Minor testified that Mr. Pahnka said, “Let’s go,” so they finished their work and left. Ac *438 cording to Mr. Minor, when he arrived home, he took a hot shower, ingested two Alieve pills, and sat on the sofa in an attempt to relax.

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

Related

Ayro v. Willstaff, Inc.
153 So. 3d 1156 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
Christopher Ayro v. Willstaff, Inc.
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014
Fabacher v. Stine, Inc.
124 So. 3d 553 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
Valerie Fabacher v. Stine, Inc.
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013
Romero v. Flowers Baking Co. of Lafayette
114 So. 3d 522 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
Miles v. Pinecrest Developmental Center
101 So. 3d 1077 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
Bihm v. Unit Drilling Co.
102 So. 3d 1058 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
Thomas Boyd Bihm v. Unit Drilling Company
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012
Linda Miles v. Pinecrest Developmental Center
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012
Minor v. J & J Carpet, Inc.
84 So. 3d 680 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
Robert Minor v. J & J Carpet, Inc.
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012
Broussard v. Country Club Auto Repair
56 So. 3d 1180 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 So. 3d 434, 10 La.App. 3 Cir. 0045, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 858, 2010 WL 2178766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minor-v-j-j-carpet-inc-lactapp-2010.