Spillman v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.
This text of 518 So. 2d 994 (Spillman v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Sylvia Dunaway SPILLMAN
v.
SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sam J. Collett, Jr., Collett & Amacker, Bogalusa, for applicant-plaintiff.
Charles M. Hughes, Craig J. Robichaux, Talley, Anthony, Hughes & Knight, Bogalusa, for respondent-defendant.
PER CURIAM.
The court of appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment because it held that a mental disorder caused by job-related stress, unaccompanied by a physical injury, is not compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act.
Without deciding whether this type of injury is compensable under the Act, we reverse.
If this type of injury is compensable under the Act, then the summary judgment was improper. If this type of injury is not compensable under the Act because it does not fit into the Act's definition of an injury, then the employer would not have tort immunity. Therefore, it may be possible for the plaintiff to state a cause of action in tort. Accordingly, the court of appeal's judgment affirming the granting of the summary judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
518 So. 2d 994, 1988 La. LEXIS 76, 1988 WL 1476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spillman-v-south-central-bell-telephone-co-la-1988.