Olander v. Schillileagh's

759 So. 2d 261, 2000 WL 419882
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 19, 2000
DocketNo. 99-1896
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 759 So. 2d 261 (Olander v. Schillileagh's) 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
Olander v. Schillileagh's, 759 So. 2d 261, 2000 WL 419882 (La. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

LGREMILLION, Judge.

The plaintiff, Nancy Olander, appeals the judgment of the workers’ compensation judge finding that she failed to prove a causal connection between a fall at home and her prior work-related injury. For the following reasons, we reverse.

FACTS

On May 6, 1996, Olander suffered a work-related injury when she slipped and fell while working as a waitress for the defendant, Schillileagh’s. She suffered injuries to her left side, including her neck, shoulder, lower back, and hip, and was examined over the course of her treatment by at least five different doctors. She was released to a sedentary to light-duty work restriction on April 9,1998, by her treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. William Andre’ Cenac.

On May 4, 1998, Olander suffered further injury when her left hip gave out causing her to fall down a flight of stairs at home. Olander’s family physician, Dr. James R. Romero, recommended that she [263]*263seek treatment from the emergency room of the Iberia Medical Center. X-rays revealed a fracture of the superior, anterior aspect of the L4 vertebral body. Olander was placed on pain medication and discharged. She returned to the emergency room the next day complaining of intractable pain in her back and left leg. She was admitted to the hospital by Dr. Harold Hebert; further diagnostic testing revealed the previously mentioned fracture and a small area of disc herniation at the L5-S1 disc level on the left. On September 10, 1998, Dr. Douglas Bernard performed an anterior interbody fusion at the L5-S1 disc level.

DOlander filed a disputed claim for compensation on April 3, 1998, complaining that Schillileagh’s refused to approve surgery needed to correct her condition. Although the record is not clear, this surgery was evidently proposed because Olander was suffering from thoracic outlet syndrome. Olander suffered the fall which is currently at issue after filing her claim. In her August 8, 1998 pre-trial statement, she first mentions that she “has further reinjured herself as a direct result of her continued disability and inability to ambulate” Schillileagh’s denied responsibility for the surgery. Following a hearing on the issue of causation for the subsequent fall and injury, the workers’ compensation judge issued a judgment in favor of Schilli-leagh’s, finding that Olander failed to prove a causal connection between her work-related injury and her May 4, 1998 fall. This appeal followed.

ISSUES

On appeal, Olander raises four assignments of error. She argues that the workers’ compensation judge erred in finding no causal connection between her work-related injury and her subsequent fall at home and in not finding Schillileagh’s responsible for her medical expenses and compensation benefits. She further argues that the workers’ compensation judge erred by not assessing Schillileagh’s with penalties, attorney’s fees, and court costs.

LAW

The aggravation of a prior work-related injury is compensable even though the aggravation occurs away from work and after employment has been terminated. Stewart v. Hospitals Affiliates Int’l, Inc. of Baton Rouge, 404 So.2d 944 (La. 1981). If the work-related injury predisposed the plaintiff to the second injury, lathen a causal connection is found between the two accidents and the plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Kelly v. City of New Orleans, 414 So.2d 770 (La.1982); Lacy v. PPG Indus., Inc., 93-1588 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94); 640 So.2d 655, unit denied, 94-1703 (La.10/7/94); 644 So.2d 639. Since the findings of fact in a workers’ compensation case are subject to the manifest error — clearly wrong standard of review, they will only be reversed if they are clearly wrong. Ckaisson v. Cajun Bag & Supply Co., 97-1225 (La.3/4/98); 708 So.2d 375.

At the hearing on the merits, Schil-lileagh’s stipulated to the testimony of Karen Young, the claims adjustor handling dander’s file. Young would have testified that Olander’s workers’ compensation benefits were terminated prior to the May 4, 1998 fall, and her claim for the subsequent fall was denied based primarily on Dr. Hebert’s May 6, 1998 report and on subsequent medical reports.

Olander testified that she was originally injured on May 6, 1996, when she slipped on cappuccino at work. As a result, she suffered injuries to her neck, shoulder, lower back, and hip. She testified that she fell on May 4, 1998, when her left hip completely gave out while she was walking down stairs at her home. Olander testified that her hip had given out prior to this fall and that she had reported this to her doctors. She could not recall any other work-related accidents where she might have injured her lower back or left side. With regard to her 1992 examination by [264]*264Dr. Bernard, she stated that she did not recall that incident. She explained that she had passed out a few times while pregnant because she was anemic.

Following her fall at work, Olander was initially seen by Dr. Cenac, to whom she reported that she had slipped and fallen on her left side. In response to the |4reason for her visit, she indicated that her “left arm is & leg hip.” In his report, Dr. Cenac noted spasm primarily in .Olander’s right paralumbar area and motor weakness, primarily in the left extensor hallucis longus muscle. His impression was that she was suffering from cervical and lumbo-sacral strain. On June 20, 1996, Olander told Dr. Cenac that she had increasing pain in her right leg and gastroc and posterior thigh area, as well as her left upper extremity. Dr. Cenac noted right hip pain with flexion. On July 8, 1996, Olander continued to complain of pain and soreness in her neck and back. Dr. Cenac found spasm in both the paracervical and para-lumbar areas. His impression was that Olander was suffering from cervical and lumbosacral strain. On July 30, 1996, Olander had slightly improved range of motion in her cervical and lumbar spine, with full range of motion at the hip. On August 13, 1996, she had full range of motion in both the cervical and lumbosa-cral spines.

On September 3, 1996, Dr. Cenac’s impression was that Olander had chronic headaches as well as resolving lumbosacral and cervical strain. On September 30, 1996, she had mild diminution in her range of motion of the cervical and lumbosacral spines. On December 2, 1996, Dr. Cenac felt that Olander was suffering from chronic shoulder pain, headaches, and mild lower back pain with left lower extremity numbness and tingling. On January 2, 1997, Olander’s lumbar range of motion was slightly limited secondary to mild pain, especially with the right lateral tilt. She had a negative straight leg raise and mild tightness in the hamstrings.

On February 28, 1997, Olander reported hip pain secondary to mild malreduction after undergoing physical therapy. The examination of her spine and hip showed full range of motion with no significant organic pathology noted. On |fiMarch 25, 1997, Olander exhibited no significant lum-bosacral problems. On May 27, 1997, she had mild tenderness primarily about the lumbosacral junction with slight limitation in forward flexion and extension and lateral tilt. Dr. Cenac’s impression was chronic neck and shoulder pain with a recurrence of mild low back pain. He released her to work status on April 9, 1998.

On September 8,1996, Olander was seen by Dr. Daniel Dunlap, a neurologist, for treatment of her headaches. On her initial visit, she complained, in addition to her headaches, that her left neck, shoulder, hip, and leg would become numb. Dr.

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

Related

Olander v. Schillilaegh's
899 So. 2d 97 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2005)
Nancy A. Olander v. Schillileagh's
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2005
White v. Fresenius Medical Care
801 So. 2d 1239 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
759 So. 2d 261, 2000 WL 419882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olander-v-schillileaghs-lactapp-2000.