61 So. 3d 48
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Williams sustained a July 7, 1998 work injury with OPSB.
- A consent judgment was entered October 17, 2000 addressing her initial disputed claim.
- On September 13, 2001, Williams filed a new disputed claim alleging the consent judgment was insufficient, medical evidence was withheld, and a change of condition to total, permanent disability occurred.
- At trial on June 16, 2010, Williams sought to admit 50 items; 5 were admitted and 45 were excluded as uncertaifed records or improper documents; Williams did not proffer the excluded documents.
- OPSB moved for involuntary dismissal after Williams rested, and the trial court granted the motion.
- The appellate standard is manifest error or clearly wrong; Williams, pro se, is nonetheless subject to the same governing rules for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correctness of involuntary dismissal standard applied | Williams argues on change-in-condition and proper evidence were withheld. | OPSB contends failure to prove a change in condition and admissible evidence supports dismissal. | No manifest error; dismissal affirmed. |
| Treatment of consent judgment and calculation of benefits | Williams contends the average weekly wage and SEB calculation were incorrect, especially as a seasonal worker. | OPSB asserts the consent judgment accounted for light-duty work and proper calculation under law. | Calculation upheld; consent judgment binding and properly applied. |
| Admissibility of medical records and evidence | Williams argues medical records should be admitted as proof of change in condition. | OPSB asserts Williams failed to provide certified copies; uncertified records were properly excluded. | Exclusion of uncertified medical records upheld; Manale deposition properly admitted. |
| Award modification and penalties | Williams seeks past-due benefits and penalties for arbitrary termination. | OPSB contends penalties/issues were not raised below and are unreviewable on appeal. | Penalties and fees not considered on appeal; affirmed dismissal overall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean v. Southmark Construction, 879 So.2d 112 (La. 2004) (clear standard for manifest error in WCJ findings)
- Amar v. Industrial Safety and Health, 805 So.2d 439 (La. 2002) (change in condition requires progression or new disabling features)
- Bordelon v. Vulcan Materials Co., 472 So.2d 5 (La. 1985) (change in compensable condition framework)
- Taylor v. J.C. Penney, 959 So.2d 549 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (SEB calculation based on post-injury earning capacity)
- Dick v. B&B Cut Stone, Co., 917 So.2d 1195 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2005) (compliance with evidentiary rules for WC evidence)
- Ritter v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 20 So.3d 540 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (appellate limits on considering new evidence)
- Rogers v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., 921 So.2d 1076 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2006) (pro se litigants must follow WC hearing rules)
- Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc., 983 So.2d 84 (La. 2008) (proper consideration of admissible records)