Lead Opinion
Thе claimant, Anthony Dellavalle, appeals the judgment of the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) judgment denying his claim for benefits. The OWC judge found that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to OWC benefits.
The matter went to trial on May 16, 2002. The OWC judge held that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an accident occurred at work. Claimant’s motion for a new trial was denied. Mr. Dellavalle now appeals the judgment of the OWC.
pOn appeal, Mr. Dellavalle contends that the OWC erred in its findings that he had not carried his burden of proof that his injury was work related.
It is a well-settled principle that the provisions of the workers’ compensation scheme should be liberally interpreted in favor of the worker. Bynum v. Capital City Press, Inc., 96-1395 p. 5-6 (La.7/2/96),
The standard of review for findings of fact by a hearing officer in a workers’ compensation case is “manifest error,” and it is the appellate court’s duty to determine not whether thе factfinder’s conclusion was right or wrong, but whether it was reasonable. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, a factfin-der’s choice between them can never be manifestly erroneous. Seal v. Gaylord
The Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the same stаndard of review applicable to factual findings of district courts is also applicable to factual findings of a workers’ compensation judge. Jurisprudence clearly establishes that in workers’ compensation cases, the appropriate standard оf review to be applied by appellate courts is the “manifest error-clearly wrong” standard. Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840, p. 7 (La.7/1/97),
In order to recover workers’ compensation benefits, a worker must first prove that he suffered an injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. La.R.S. 23:1031(A). An accident is defined as an “unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violеntly, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” La.R.S. 23:1021(1).
La. R.S. 23:1031 provides compensation if an employee sustains personal injury as the result of an accident аrising out of and in the course of employment. Daspit v. Southern Eagle Sales & Services, Inc.,
The primary issue presented for decision on appeal is whether appellant proved by a preponderance of the evidencе, before the OWC, that he had an accident under La. R.S. 23:1031(A). All of the appellant’s assertions are factual issues. The trial court held that “... the testimony of other witnesses and other evidence discredited or cast serious doubt upon Claimant’s version of the alleged accident and events following, and Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an accident occurred at work.” Our | (¡examination of the record fails to find testimony or evidence, which directly disputes claimant’s contentions сoncerning the occurrence of the accident and the injuries that he sustained as a result of this accident.
There were three witnesses called at trial. Mr. Doucette, claimant’s co-worker, testified that on July 16, 2000 while they were changing out a motor, Mr. Dellavalle fеlt a sharp pain in his chest and neck. Furthermore, he testified that he immediately reported to their team leader, Mr. Ricky Menesses, that Mr. Dellavalle appeared to be in pain immediately after the accident. The second witness, Mr. Me-nesses, testified that he attempted immediately after the accident to get Mr. Del-lavalle to go to the hospital. The final witness Mr. Dellavalle, testified that he experienced pain while he was disconnecting the bolts on the engine. The aggregate of these testimonies clearly estаblish that an accident happened on July 16, 2000, while Mr. Dellavalle was at work and doing a work related activity.
Although the symptoms may have initially appeared to be cardiac in nature, they later are proven to be the result of two ruptured discs. After the accidеnt, Mr. Dellavalle suffered persistent pain in his chest and neck. Because of his preexisting heart trouble, he reasonably believed that he was suffering cardiac arrest. Mr. Dellavalle testified that after the accident he began to feel numbness in his arm and persistent pain. He also testified that this numbness in his arm and fingers was not present prior to the accident.
As further indicia that the accident was not cardiac in nature, Dr. Tampira performed an angioplasty after the accident, but prior to Mr. Dellavalle’s visit to Dr. George, his neurosurgeon. Mr. Della-valle’s angioplasty did not alleviate his pain. It was then that Dr. Tampira ruled out coronary problems and ordered cervi
There is a lack of conflicting evidence presented to the OWC, which would discredit the appellant’s account of his work related accident. Mr. Dellavalle’s co-worker, Stanley Dousette, confirms claimant’s version of the events that transpired on the day of the asserted accident. What initially appeared to be symptomatic of a heart attack later proved to be a disc herniation, which was causally related to the |snature of the activity, to wit, removing bolts from a motor. Mr. Dellavalle sustained a work related injury as a result of this activity, which culminated in injury. Clearly, the claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Thе accident and the causal link between the accident on the job and the injury sustained was established by a preponderance of the evidence in the record before this Court. Contrarily, the defense failed to produce any medical records to indicаte that Mr. Dellavalle had ruptured discs pri- or to July 16, 2000. See Walton v. Normandy Village Homes Association Inc.,
The present case record provides insufficient conflicting testimony or evidence to controvert the appellant’s position. Given the absence of significant controverted evidence it was unreasonable for the OWC judge to conclude that the claimant failed to satisfy his burden of proof. Accordingly, the OWC judge was clearly wrong and manifestly erroneous in his judgment. Therefore, we reverse the OWC judgment and remand the matter to the OWC for further action commensurate with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TOBIAS, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS.
Notes
. Appellant is not asserting that his cardiac problem is work related nor is it part of his workers’ compensation claim for benefits.
. It appears from the record that the claimant was not officially medically released to return to work on June 22, 2000.
.Apparently, surgery is not a valid option based on the claimant's cardiac condition.
. There is some conflict in the evidence in the record as to whether Mr. Dellavalle had experience some back trouble prior to the accident.
. Dr. George's testimony was submitted through deposition.
Dissenting Opinion
DISSENTING WITH REASONS.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion to reverse the judgment of the trial court.
We are required to decide whether a trial judge’s decision is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Stobart v. State Department of Transportation and Development,
That is not to say that had I been the trier of fact that I would not have found for the plaintiff/appellant. However, insofar as the trial court has the discretion to make credibility determinations at trial when evidence conflicts, an appellate court is required to defer to the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, lol cannot say that the determinations of