Walton v. William Wolf Baking Co., Inc.

406 So. 2d 168
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedNovember 16, 1981
Docket81-C-1209
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 406 So. 2d 168 (Walton v. William Wolf Baking Co., Inc.) 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
Walton v. William Wolf Baking Co., Inc., 406 So. 2d 168 (La. 1981).

Opinion

406 So.2d 168 (1981)

Dwight R. WALTON
v.
WILLIAM WOLF BAKING COMPANY, INC., Paul M. Teeney and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

No. 81-C-1209.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 16, 1981.

*170 John L. Lanier, of Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, Thibodaux, for defendant-applicant.

Robert J. Prejeant, of Watkins, Walker & Prejeant, Houma, for plaintiff-respondent.

WATSON, Justice.

The only issue is whether the quantum of damages awarded by the trial court is so excessive that it represents an abuse of discretion. LSA-C.C. art. 1934(3).

Plaintiff, Dwight R. Walton, received a judgment for $317,573.60. In reasons for judgment, the trial court stated that plaintiff will never be able to engage in gainful employment and would receive $75,000 for pain and suffering, $5,000 for future psychiatric and orthopaedic care, $56,084 for loss of past wages, and $164,917.67 for loss of future wages. Walton was injured in an automobile collision with a truck driven by Paul M. Teeney, owned by William Wolf Baking Company, Inc., and insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.[1] Liability of these three defendants was not an issue at trial.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. 396 So.2d 962 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1981). The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court was not clearly wrong and that the award did not represent an abuse of discretion. A writ was granted to review the judgment. 400 So.2d 1379 (La., 1981).

Defendants contend that the conclusion that plaintiff is completely disabled is clearly wrong. Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La., 1978). Further, defendants argue that the award for past lost wages is excessive; that there was no basis to award future medical expenses; and that $75,000 for pain and suffering and $164,917.67 for loss of future wages represent a clear abuse of discretion.

Walton worked as a driller for Delta Drilling Company and earned slightly over $2,000 a month in 1977. In 1976, his wages were $21,226.00. He has a sixth grade education and was fifty-four years old when the accident occurred.[2] In the two years between the accident and trial, Walton incurred medical expenses of $16,571.93. Walton's initial injuries consisted of a moderate to severe cervical strain, moderate to severe cervical spondylosis, and degenerative cervical changes. However, he developed a depressive reaction secondary to a pain syndrome. According to the trial court, fourteen doctors regard Walton's complaints as unique, but sincere. The medical findings were summarized as follows:

"... cervical strain superimposed upon cervical osteoarthritis; increased deep tendon reflexes of lower extremities; lack of normal lodortic curvature of the spine with formaminal encroachment on the right at C-4 and C-5; cervical spondylosis further degenerative diseases at C-4; grossly abnormal MMPI showing psychophysiological conversion type pattern of a chronic nature; diminished sensation involving the palm and radial aspect of the hand; bilateral absence of deep tendon reflex; moderately severe degenerative changes of C-3, C-4, C-5 and C-6 disc spaces; pain syndrome making normal range of motion of the neck difficult; headaches; insomnia; chronic pain; four periods of hospitalization totalling 48 days...." (Tr. 50)

Defendants contended at trial and now that Walton is a malingerer. The trial court found a disparity between Walton's subjective and objective disability, but attributed the differential to the psychosomatic overlay from the accident. Defendants introduced surveillance films, but the court noted:

"Practically all of the footage shows plaintiff walking in a stiff and deliberate manner and corroborates the findings of the physicians." (Tr. 51)

The court observed Walton for two days during trial and was convinced that malingering would be totally out of character *171 with his history and the appearance presented to the court. Also, the court noted: "The common thread to the many doctors' opinions in the record is that Mr. Walton is not a malingerer." (Tr. 51)

The accident occurred late in the afternoon on May 31, 1977. Walton was unconscious for the first few minutes after the impact. His wife called a doctor that evening. Walton could not see the physician without going to the hospital and decided to put it off until the next day. His wife helped him dress the following morning. He worked in pain that day. When he came home from work, he looked extremely worn and his wife made an appointment for him to see Dr. Phillip Cenac the next afternoon. Walton has been unable to return to work since seeing the doctor. His incapacity has increased with the passage of time. Traction and physical therapy have not improved his condition, although the therapy provides some pain relief. At the time of trial, Walton was faithfully going to a physical therapy clinic three times a week. Some days are not as painful as others; he has good and bad days. Walton can let his left arm hang down but it hurts when he does so and therefore he carries it above the waist with his other hand.

Except for an ulcer operation in 1956 or 1957, Walton enjoyed excellent health before the accident. According to the testimony of both spouses, Walton has largely abandoned his hobbies of fishing, hunting, and gardening. His wife encourages him to cut the grass. Their garden has been reduced in size. Walton attempts as much physical activity as he can and helps cut the grass around his house with a power mower.

Walton started working in the oil field as a roughneck at the age of seventeen and has remained in that field except for a period of service with the government. He had been a driller since 1945. A driller supervises the operations of a rig drilling crew but is required to take an active part in the operation. Walton once tried to do some dairy work but his wife had to assist him because he did not have the education and clerical skills to make out the bills.

Walton testified that he went to see Mr. Maten, a tool pusher for his former employer, Delta Drilling Company. Maten told him he could not drill anymore, so he went to the state employment office in Houma. The state employment office recommended that he talk to the vocational rehabilitation office where he had an interview with one Hornsby. Hornsby told Walton that he could not recommend anything to him.

Dr. Christopher E. Cenac testified as an orthopaedic expert about his treatment of Walton. Walton came to him on referral from Dr. Phillip Cenac's office and was first seen on June 16, 1977. Walton was diagnosed as having an acute cervical strain and admitted to the hospital on June 23 for four days of cervical traction and physical therapy. Physical therapy was continued after release from the hospital, but Walton complained of weakness in the left upper extremity. Walton was referred to Dr. Michael E. Carey, professor of neurosurgery at the L.S.U. Medical Center. Dr. Carey performed a myleogram; it did not indicate a surgical situation. Dr. Carey's report states Walton's "MMPI... is grossly abnormal and showed a psychophysiological conversion type of pattern of chronic nature." Dr. Carey also felt that Walton had "cervical osteoarthritis and cervical sprain consequent to his automobile accident." Dr. Cenac continued to see Walton who complained of shoulder and arm pain. Dr. Cenac noted a diminishing range of motion in the cervical spine, and possible dystrophy of the left upper extremity. Arrangements were made for admission to the Mercy Hospital Pain Unit.

Dr. Richard H. Morse, a psychiatrist, is director of the Mercy Hospital Pain Center.

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

Related

Riley v. Salley
874 So. 2d 874 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Dauzat v. Canal Ins. Co.
692 So. 2d 739 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hosp.
676 So. 2d 543 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1996)
Cooley v. K-Mart Corp.
650 So. 2d 835 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
Lasha v. Olin Corp.
625 So. 2d 1002 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1993)
Coffin v. Bd. of Sup'rs of La. Univ.
620 So. 2d 1354 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Bergeron v. Southeastern Louisiana University
610 So. 2d 986 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Lewis v. Calice
602 So. 2d 1149 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Schafer v. Hoffman
831 P.2d 897 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1992)
Boulmay v. Dubois
593 So. 2d 769 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Aisole v. Dean
574 So. 2d 1248 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1991)
Roberson v. Provident House
559 So. 2d 838 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
Davis v. Sewerage and Water Bd.
555 So. 2d 664 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Spangler v. North Star Drilling Co.
552 So. 2d 673 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Bernard v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange
534 So. 2d 1348 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Kolwe v. Taylor
517 So. 2d 236 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1987)
Breaux v. Lore
487 So. 2d 558 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Sherlock v. Berry
487 So. 2d 555 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Hayes v. Commercial Union Assur. Co.
459 So. 2d 1245 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)
Dunaway v. Rester Refrigeration Service, Inc.
428 So. 2d 1064 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
406 So. 2d 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-william-wolf-baking-co-inc-la-1981.