OUR LADY OF LAKE MEDICAL CENTER v. Matthews

971 So. 2d 354, 2007 WL 2782340
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 26, 2007
Docket2006 CA 1584
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 971 So. 2d 354 (OUR LADY OF LAKE MEDICAL CENTER v. Matthews) 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
OUR LADY OF LAKE MEDICAL CENTER v. Matthews, 971 So. 2d 354, 2007 WL 2782340 (La. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

971 So.2d 354 (2007)

OUR LADY OF the LAKE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
v.
Claudette MATTHEWS.

No. 2006 CA 1584.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

September 26, 2007.

*356 Anthony P. Palermo, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff/Defendant-in-Reconvention/Appellee Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center.

Lee W. Rand, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Plaintiff-In-Reconvention/Appellant Claudette Matthews.

Before PARRO, GUXDRY, and McCLENDON, JJ.

PARRO, J.

A former employee appeals from a judgment of the Office of Workers' Compensation Administration (OWC),[1] which declared that she was no longer entitled to continued workers' compensation benefits and dismissed her disputed claim for benefits. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On October 3, 2001, Claudette Matthew stuck her finger with a needle while drawing blood from an AIDS patient during her employment as a phiebotomist for Our Lady of the Lady Regional Medical Center (OLOL). Subsequently, OLOL voluntarily began to pay workers' compensation benefits to Mrs. Matthews in connection with an alleged resulting mental injury.

On March 31, 2005, OLOL filed a petition seeking to have the OWC determine if Mrs. Matthews had recovered from the 2001 Injury such that she was no longer disabled as a result of her injury. In her answer, Mrs. Matthews filed a reconventional demand, alleging that she was permanently totally disabled as a result of the 2001 incident. In addition to workers' compensation benefits, Mrs. Matthews sought penalties and attorney fees. Subsequently, OLOL petitioned the OWC to have Mrs. Matthews undergo an independent medical examination by an appointed physician. OLOL's motion was opposed by Mrs. Matthews. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that Mrs. Matthews was presently afflicted by a psychiatrically disabling condition as diagnosed by various psychiatrists in accordance with DSM criteria. Thus, the issue presented was one of causation.

Following the trial of this matter, the workers' compensation judge (WO) found that Mrs. Matthews failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her physical injury caused her mental injury, in that her post-traumatic stress disorder and depression preexisted the 2001 incident. The WCJ further declared that the needle stick accident did not exacerbate her preexisting mental condition. From the judgment dismissing her claim for continued workers' compensation benefits, Mrs. Matthews appealed, contending that the WO erred in (1) finding that, prior to the 2001 incident, she experienced and was disabled by the following conditions: schizoaffective disorder, panic disorder with phobias, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression; (2) failing to find that the accident exacerbated or aggravated her preexisting condition rendering her disabled; (3) placing the burden of proof on Mrs. Matthews, as she was not the plaintiff; (4) failing to give greater weight to the testimony of her treating physicians than to Dr. Rennie Culver who personally evaluated her at OLOL's request on one occasion; (5) ignoring the stipulation relative *357 to the testimony of her son regarding her mental status; (6) failing to find that she had satisfied her burden of proving causation by clear and convincing evidence of the disabling psychiatric condition or an exacerbation or aggravation of the preexisting psychiatric condition; and (7) giving any consideration to the testimony of Dr. Culver.

Discussion

In order for a claimant to recover benefits under the workers' compensation law, he or she must prove that he or she has suffered a personal injury as a result of a work-related accident and that the injury has rendered him or her either temporarily totally disabled, permanently totally disabled, and/or permanently partially disabled, or entitled to supplemental earnings benefits. Alfred v. Mid-South Machine, Inc., 594 So.2d 937, 939 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992); see LSA-R.S. 23:1021, 1031, and 1221.

In this case, Mrs. Matthews contends she suffered a mental injury caused by a work-related physical injury, producing a disability which prevents her from engaging in any gainful employment. Compensation for a mental injury resulting from a work-related accident producing physical injury is governed by LSA-R.S. 23:1021(8)(c),[2] which states in pertinent part:

A mental injury or illness caused by a physical injury to the employee's body shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this Chapter unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.

Thus, where a mental Injury or illness develops secondary to a physical injury sustained in a work-related accident, a claimant is entitled to workers' compensation benefits for any disability resulting from the mental injury or illness and to reimbursement for medical expenses for treatment of the mental injury. Charles v. South Cent. Industries, 96-0883 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 706, 708. In order to prevail, a claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the physical injury caused the mental injury. LSA-R.S. 23:1021(8)(c). Further, the mental injury must be diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist, and the diagnosis must meet the most current criteria established by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. LSA-R.S. 23:1021(8)(d); Charles, 683 So.2d at 709.

Although compensation laws are to be construed liberally in the claimant's favor, the claimant's burden of proof is not relaxed. Charles, 683 So.2d at 709. To prove a matter by clear and convincing evidence means a party must demonstrate that the existence of a disputed fact is highly probable, much more probable than its nonexistence. Bundren v. Affiliated Nursing Homes, Inc., 94-808 (La.App. 3rd Cir.2/1/95), 649 So.2d 1177, 1179. Disability can be proved by medical and lay testimony. The factual determination by the WO as to whether the claimant has discharged his or her burden of proof should not be disturbed on review absent manifest error. Charles, 683 So.2d at 709. A reviewing court must analyze claimed disability caused by mental conditions with utmost caution in view of the nebulous characteristics of mental conditions and *358 the possibility of symptoms being easily feigned. Westley v. Land & Offshore, 523 So.2d 812, 813 (La.1988); see Williams v. Regional Transit Authority, 546 So.2d 150, 158 (La.1989).

The record indicates that Mrs. Matthews was violently raped on or about June 5, 1997. After this traumatic event, Mrs. Matthews suffered with psychiatric problems for which she had to be hospitalized several times. She had not been hospitalized for her psychiatric condition during the two-year period before being stuck by the needle. According to the Matthewses, prior to the 2001 needle stick, Mrs. Matthews had been working and caring for her family. Although she suffered from a history of depression, Mrs. Matthews urged that she did not have a prior history of visual hallucinations or extreme psychotic behavior. According to the Matthewses and Dr. James B. Denney, a psychiatrist, Mrs. Matthews' symptomatology changed after she was stuck by the needle in that her hallucinations now related to the AIDS patient. Mrs. Matthews argued that this change gave rise to a presumption of causation as to an aggravation and acceleration of her preexisting condition.

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

Related

Leidelmeijen v. Ferncrest Manor Nursing Home Luba Workers' Comp.
191 So. 3d 38 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)
Franklin v. Slidell Police Department
112 So. 3d 257 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
East Baton Rouge Parish School Board v. Green
111 So. 3d 91 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
Janneck v. LWCC
70 So. 3d 1007 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011)
Louisiana Commerce & Trade Ass'n-SIF v. Cruz
38 So. 3d 1041 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)
Riker v. POPEYE'S FRIED CHICKEN
29 So. 3d 516 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
Sevin v. Chevrolet
24 So. 3d 879 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
971 So. 2d 354, 2007 WL 2782340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/our-lady-of-lake-medical-center-v-matthews-lactapp-2007.