32 So. 2d 108 | La. Ct. App. | 1947
Defendant-appellants, in their applications for rehearing, urge as error the fact that we applied the test established by cases of Hecht v. Higgins Industries, Inc., La. App.,
In answer to defendant-appellants' contention we say that each case must be decided upon its own facts. No two cases are factually alike. Rules and tests are established by the cases to guide the courts in interpreting the Compensation Act. We did not overlook the Washington case and the other cases which followed the Washington case, nor was it our intention to overrule this case nor the jurisprudence formulated by that decision. We felt then, as we feel now, that said jurisprudence was not applicable to the case at bar in that in all of these cases there was medical testimony definitely fixing a percentage of disability.
We have carefully reread the record in this case, particularly the medical testimony offered by both the plaintiff and the defendants. We fail to find any semblance of testimony relating to any degree of partial disability of the plaintiff to do general manual labor. To the contrary, we find, as stated in our original opinion, that the medical testimony preponderates in our holding that, due to plaintiff's condition, he is unable to do general manual labor, therefore our original holding that plaintiff is totally and permanently disabled is adhered to.
Furthermore, in the instant case we stated in the opinion [
Application of defendant-appellants is therefore refused.
In plaintiff-appellee's application for rehearing, he contends that we erred in not casting the defendant-appellants for all costs and in not allowing him five per cent. as damages for frivolous appeal.
In answer, we say that the original judgment, which was amended and affirmed, cast the defendants for all costs and we disposed of his demand for damages.
His application for rehearing is refused. Both applications refused. *109