Woodard v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Woodard v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance

131 So. 2d 614, 1961 La. App. LEXIS 1250

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 16, 1961

DocketNo. 9531

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 So. 2d 614 (Woodard v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance) 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

Woodard v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance, 131 So. 2d 614, 1961 La. App. LEXIS 1250 (La. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDY, Judge.

This is a companion case, consolidated for trial and purposes of appeal with the suit of Chandler v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. Co., 131 So.2d 606. Defendants have appealed from judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $867 representing an award of $750 for personal injuries and $117 for medical and doctors bills. Plaintiff has answered the appeal, praying for an increase in the amount of the award to the sum of $2,617.

The facts involved have been fully set forth in our opinion in the companion case, and therefore the only issue tendered by this appeal relates to the quantum of the award.

Plaintiff, Carolyn Sue Woodard (now Mrs. Cortinez), after examination at the Ruston Hospital immediately following the accident, was permitted to return to her home. She continued, intermittently the duties of her employment until discharged by her employer, which action, however, we attribute to a reduction of the work force and not to the effect of her injuries. For a few days subsequent to the accident Mrs. Cortinez suffered from headaches and dizziness, for which she consulted Dr. O. L. Sanders on May 10, 1959. This doctor found X-rays to be negative but was of the opinion that plaintiff had suffered a slight cerebral concussion and she was admitted to the hospital on May 16, 1959, where she remained under observation until May 22nd.

Our study of the record finds us in complete agreement with the conclusion of the district judge that this plaintiff suffered some minor injuries and a temporary period of headaches attributable to the accident, but without any residual physical impairment.

We cannot find that the award made was either inadequate or excessive, and, accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

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

HARDY, Judge.

This is a companion case, consolidated for trial and purposes of appeal with the suit of Chandler v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. Co., 131 So.2d 606. Defendants have appealed from judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $867 representing an award of $750 for personal injuries and $117 for medical and doctors bills. Plaintiff has answered the appeal, praying for an increase in the amount of the award to the sum of $2,617.

The facts involved have been fully set forth in our opinion in the companion case, and therefore the only issue tendered by this appeal relates to the quantum of the award.

Plaintiff, Carolyn Sue Woodard (now Mrs. Cortinez), after examination at the Ruston Hospital immediately following the accident, was permitted to return to her home. She continued, intermittently the duties of her employment until discharged by her employer, which action, however, we attribute to a reduction of the work force and not to the effect of her injuries. For a few days subsequent to the accident Mrs. Cortinez suffered from headaches and dizziness, for which she consulted Dr. O. L. Sanders on May 10, 1959. This doctor found X-rays to be negative but was of the opinion that plaintiff had suffered a slight cerebral concussion and she was admitted to the hospital on May 16, 1959, where she remained under observation until May 22nd.

Our study of the record finds us in complete agreement with the conclusion of the district judge that this plaintiff suffered some minor injuries and a temporary period of headaches attributable to the accident, but without any residual physical impairment.

We cannot find that the award made was either inadequate or excessive, and, accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 2d 614, 1961 La. App. LEXIS 1250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodard-v-grain-dealers-mutual-insurance-lactapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack