Guevara v. Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc., 129 So. 3d 625

Claimant Cruz Daniel Guevara alleged that on August 18, 2011 he fainted from heat while handling scaffolding at work, fell off a bucket, and ultimately sustained dehydration, kidney problems, and a right knee injury; he later sought treatment and was hospitalized.
Guevara had preexisting kidney disease and a prior stroke; hospital records diagnosed non-obstructive nephrolithiasis, partial small-bowel obstruction, acute kidney injury attributed to volume depletion from working in the heat, and did not record knee complaints during the admission.
Guevara first sought care for knee complaints weeks later; orthopedist Dr. Johnston diagnosed meniscal and chondral damage, ligament injuries, effusion, and recommended possible arthroscopy and restricted him from scaffold work.
Employer Brand Services disputed that an on-the-job accident occurred and argued the medical events were unrelated to work, pointing to inconsistencies in Guevara’s testimony and preexisting conditions; supervisor testimony raised timing and work-activity questions.
The OWC judge found Guevara sustained a compensable work accident on August 18, 2011 causing dehydration, back injury, and right knee injury, awarding temporary total disability and medical expenses; Brand appealed.
The appellate court affirmed the knee-injury and entitlement findings but reversed the award for back injury for lack of medical evidence of spinal involvement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did an on-the-job accident occur on Aug. 18, 2011?	Guevara: fainted while working, fell, was hospitalized for dehydration/AKI from heat — accident arose in course/scope.	Brand: testimony inconsistent, limited work performed, supervisor saw tools packed; medical records show events due to preexisting conditions, not work.	Court: OWC judge not manifestly wrong; evidence supports work-related accident.
Was the right knee injury caused by the workplace accident?	Guevara: knee symptoms began after the fall; orthopedist links current disabling knee pathology to that event.	Brand: no knee complaint in hospital records, delay in treatment and prior knee pain suggest non-work origin.	Court: Affirmed — credible finding that knee injury manifested after fall and is compensable.
Was the back injury caused by the workplace accident?	Guevara: judge could infer back injury from testimony/circumstances.	Brand: no medical diagnosis or treatment for back pain in records.	Court: Reversed — no objective medical evidence of spinal injury.
Are temporary total disability and medical benefits supported?	Guevara: treating orthopedist restricted work and prescribed treatment; disability presumed to follow accident.	Brand: disability not shown by clear and convincing evidence; preexisting conditions explain disability.	Court: Award upheld as to knee-related benefits (presumption and medical evidence suffice); back-related benefits reversed.

Gray v. H.B. Zachary Const. Co., 798 So.2d 271 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (standard of review for OWC factual findings and credibility).
Bourgeois v. Seabright Ins. Co., 115 So.3d 50 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (worker’s testimony may suffice if not seriously contradicted and corroborated).
Miller v. Roger Miller Sand, Inc., 646 So.2d 330 (La.) (burden to show causal link between accident and disabling condition).
Doucet v. Baker Hughes Prod. Tools, 635 So.2d 166 (La.) (rebuttable presumption that disability resulted from employment accident).
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 419 So.2d 829 (La.) (preexisting condition may be compensable if activated or precipitated by work accident).