Ardoin v. Firestone Polymers, L.L.C.
2011 La. LEXIS 19
La.2011Background
- This is a Louisiana workers’ compensation case involving an unwitnessed accident and manifest error review of the hearing officer’s finding of a work-related injury.
- Plaintiff Kenneth Ardoin, employed by Firestone Polymers, alleges a June 2006 bicycle accident caused a right knee injury; reporting of the accident was delayed for about 18 months.
- Medical chronology shows initial knee issues in 2006, surgery in mid-2006, return to full duty, later diagnoses of degenerative joint disease, and no consistent contemporaneous reporting that tied the injury to a work incident.
- The hearing officer credited Ardoin’s credibility and concluded a work-related accident occurred, awarding indemnity benefits and penalties/attorney fees for denial of benefits.
- The Court of Appeal partially affirmed but vacated penalties; the Supreme Court reversed, holding the hearing officer manifestly erred in proving a work-related unwitnessed accident.
- The reversal rested on Bruno’s two-component test for unwitnessed accidents and the lack of corroborating objective evidence, including proper consideration of delays and inconsistencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Ardoin prove a work-related unwitnessed accident under Bruno? | Ardoin’s testimony alone should prevail if credible and uncorroborated by others. | Delay, inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration undermine proof of a work-related accident. | Yes, manifest error; court held no proof of work-related accident under Bruno. |
| Was there corroboration or objective evidence supporting Ardoin’s account? | Corroboration exists in post-accident circumstances and medical testimony. | No corroboration; medical records do not indicate reporting of a work incident; objective evidence contradicts the claim. | No corroboration; evidence discredits the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La. 1992) (unwitnessed-accident proof requires corroboration and lack of discrediting evidence)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error deferential to credibility findings; objective evidence can override credibility)
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La. 1979) (two-step test for appellate review of factual findings)
- Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (when multiple reasonable views exist, trial-fact credibility decisions are not clearly wrong)