Newell v. Orleans Dredging Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Newell v. Orleans Dredging Co.

122 So. 730, 10 La. App. 735, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 172

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 29, 1929

DocketNo. 11,689

StatusPublished

This text of 122 So. 730 (Newell v. Orleans Dredging Co.) 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

Newell v. Orleans Dredging Co., 122 So. 730, 10 La. App. 735, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 172 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERPIELD, J.

Plaintiff, employed as a fireman on a dredge-boat, brings this suit against his employers under the compensation law, alleging that on June 7, 1927, he was severely injured by falling against a cross-beam supporting the superstructure of the dredge-boat “Hercules,” “striking himself on various parts of the body, but with greater force and more particularly the center of his back and spinal column and in the immediate vicinity of his shoulder blades on either side thereof.”

Defendant admits that the plaintiff was injured in the manner alleged in his petition, but claims his disability due to the injury did not exceed two weeks, for which he has been paid compensation and that, consequently, no further compensation is due.

Plaintiff was twice admitted to the Marine Hospital. The records of that institution show that, when first admitted on October 20, 1927, he was suffering from a “contusion of back cause trauma, dental caries and salivary calculus of teeth.” He was discharged on November 23, 1927, and re-admitted on March 17, 1928. At the time of his re-admission he was troubled with “neuritis, multiple, left leg, left foot, left hand, cause and variety undetermined.” He was discharged the second time on May 15, 1928.

It is the contention of plaintiff’s counsel that the neuritis, with which plaintiff was affected upon the occasion of his second entry into the hospital, was attributable to the original injury to his back. This contention finds no support in the record. The evidence is to the contrary. Three physicians testify that neuritis, which is an inflammation of the nerve, is not caused by trauma.

The trial judge was of the opinion that plaintiff had been sufficiently compensated for his injury and, accordingly, rendered judgment for defendant, dismissing plaintiff’s suit.

We believe this judgment to be correct and it is therefore affirmed.

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

WESTERPIELD, J.

Plaintiff, employed as a fireman on a dredge-boat, brings this suit against his employers under the compensation law, alleging that on June 7, 1927, he was severely injured by falling against a cross-beam supporting the superstructure of the dredge-boat “Hercules,” “striking himself on various parts of the body, but with greater force and more particularly the center of his back and spinal column and in the immediate vicinity of his shoulder blades on either side thereof.”

Defendant admits that the plaintiff was injured in the manner alleged in his petition, but claims his disability due to the injury did not exceed two weeks, for which he has been paid compensation and that, consequently, no further compensation is due.

Plaintiff was twice admitted to the Marine Hospital. The records of that institution show that, when first admitted on October 20, 1927, he was suffering from a “contusion of back cause trauma, dental caries and salivary calculus of teeth.” He was discharged on November 23, 1927, and re-admitted on March 17, 1928. At the time of his re-admission he was troubled with “neuritis, multiple, left leg, left foot, left hand, cause and variety undetermined.” He was discharged the second time on May 15, 1928.

It is the contention of plaintiff’s counsel that the neuritis, with which plaintiff was affected upon the occasion of his second entry into the hospital, was attributable to the original injury to his back. This contention finds no support in the record. The evidence is to the contrary. Three physicians testify that neuritis, which is an inflammation of the nerve, is not caused by trauma.

The trial judge was of the opinion that plaintiff had been sufficiently compensated for his injury and, accordingly, rendered judgment for defendant, dismissing plaintiff’s suit.

We believe this judgment to be correct and it is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 730, 10 La. App. 735, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newell-v-orleans-dredging-co-lactapp-1929.