Veuleman v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Veuleman v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.

226 So. 2d 772, 254 La. 785, 1969 La. LEXIS 3441

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 8, 1969

DocketNo. 49979

StatusPublished

This text of 226 So. 2d 772 (Veuleman v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.) 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.

Bluebook

Veuleman v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 226 So. 2d 772, 254 La. 785, 1969 La. LEXIS 3441 (La. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In re: Mrs. Artie Veuleman and her husband, Ivy Veuleman, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Sabine. 223 So.2d 258.

Writs refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in the judgment reached by that Court.

FOURNET, C. J., and SANDERS

and

BARHAM, JJ.,

are of the opinion that the writ should be granted. The medical facts as found and recited by the majority on rehearing establish as a matter of law that plaintiff with the attendant conditions of “ * * * elevated blood pressure, her tendency toward obesity, and her occupation * * * ” is unable to return to work without an increased hazard to her health and the necessity to work in pain. The majority on rehearing further erred as a matter of law in its failure to accord the proper weight to the testimony of the attending physician, especially where the physicians who examined her upon only one occasion were not specialists in vascular diseases and where one of these, according to the majority’s summary of his testimony, corroborated the attending physician with his opinion that “ * * * a superficial thrombophlebitis would predispose her to a recurrence * * * contingent upon the presence or absence of other conditions”, which are shown to exist in this case.

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

In re: Mrs. Artie Veuleman and her husband, Ivy Veuleman, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Sabine. 223 So.2d 258.

Writs refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in the judgment reached by that Court.

FOURNET, C. J., and SANDERS

and

BARHAM, JJ.,

are of the opinion that the writ should be granted. The medical facts as found and recited by the majority on rehearing establish as a matter of law that plaintiff with the attendant conditions of “ * * * elevated blood pressure, her tendency toward obesity, and her occupation * * * ” is unable to return to work without an increased hazard to her health and the necessity to work in pain. The majority on rehearing further erred as a matter of law in its failure to accord the proper weight to the testimony of the attending physician, especially where the physicians who examined her upon only one occasion were not specialists in vascular diseases and where one of these, according to the majority’s summary of his testimony, corroborated the attending physician with his opinion that “ * * * a superficial thrombophlebitis would predispose her to a recurrence * * * contingent upon the presence or absence of other conditions”, which are shown to exist in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 So. 2d 772, 254 La. 785, 1969 La. LEXIS 3441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veuleman-v-bituminous-casualty-corp-la-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack