531 So. 2d 494 | La. Ct. App. | 1988
Lead Opinion
The issue in this worker’s compensation case is whether plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a work-related accident on March 20, 1984, and that he is disabled as a result of this accident.
Plaintiff, Estus Sykes, Jr., began working for Texas Eastern Corporation in 1962. He alleged that during the mid-sixties, he sustained an on-the-job injury which required several operations on his back; but that although he still suffered with intermittent back pain, he continued to work for Texas Eastern. Sykes also alleged that on March 20, 1984, he was working alone as an employee of Texas Eastern, when he injured himself by lifting a heavy gas control valve from the floor and putting it on a test stand, which accident aggravated a prior injury, causing injury to back, neck and shoulders. Sykes testified that although his back hurt after the accident, he continued to work. Subsequently, plaintiff saw Dr. Kent Martin, an internist, complaining of his back injury. He was referred to Dr. Thomas C. Turner, an orthopedist, who examined Sykes on May 3, 1984. Sykes’ primary complaints were of pain in the neck, right shoulder and right arm. Dr. Turner admitted Mr. Sykes into the hospital and placed him in traction. Sykes stayed in the hospital for five days. On May 5, 1984, Mr. Sykes’ employment was terminated by Texas Eastern.
After a trial on the merits, the trial court found plaintiff had suffered a job-related injury and was disabled, stating:
... the Court finds that Mr. Sykes suffered a job related injury on March 20th, 1984, that said injury disabled him, that he was totalled disabled during the month of May of 1984, and for that period of time is entitled to $1,733.16 in compensation. Court having found that his average monthly wage was $2,600.00 per month, from June 1st, 1984 to December 31st, 1984, that Mr. Sykes is entitled to $1,731.60 per month. That from January 1st, 1985 to December 31st, 1985, that Mr. Sykes is entitled to ... $1,608.26 per month, and thereafter that Mr. Sykes is entitled to benefits as provided in Revised, Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1221, Paragraph 3. That the employer is held liable for all medical bills previously incurred by Mr. Sykes in connection with this injury and any future medical bills. That Mr. Sykes’ attorney is awarded the sum of $3,500.00 in attorney’s fees, and that statutory penalties are assessed against the employer, and that judicial, legal interest be paid from date of judicial demand until the claim is paid....
After hearing on motion for new trial on the question of benefits, the trial court awarded plaintiff $245 per week from May 1, 1984, through December 1, 1985, and continued supplemental earnings benefits after that date.
Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in finding that Sykes sustained an on-the-job injury on March 20, 1984, or was disabled in any way as the result of the alleged injury.
Further, in evaluating the evidence, the uncontradicted testimony of a witness, even though the witness is a party, should be accepted as true in the absence of circumstances in the record casting suspicion on the reliability of the testimony. West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc., 371 So.2d 1146 (La.1979).
In the instant case, there is no evidence to contradict Sykes’ testimony that he sustained a work-related injury to his back while lifting a heavy gas control valve on March 20, 1984. The defense offered no testimonial evidence. Plaintiff is corroborated in some respects by the testimony of his wife and his station supervisor. The supervisor testified that Sykes had complained to him about the March, 1984, injury at that time. The medical treatments given to Sykes were given soon after the March, 1984 accident.
As did the trial judge, we find sufficient corroboration of the plaintiff’s testimony in this instance. See, Billiot v. Alton’s Bakery of Morgan City, Inc., 398 So.2d 624 (La.App. 1 Cir.1981).
After reviewing the record, we are convinced that the evidence does support a finding that plaintiff suffered a job-related injury on March 20, 1984, and that his injury disabled him. The trial court’s finding is not manifestly erroneous. See, Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment at appellant’s costs.
AFFIRMED.
LeBLANC, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
The majority opinion has overlooked some important facts. According to Mr. Sykes, in the latter part of 1983, he was injured on the job while moving an air compressor motor in New Roads, Louisiana.
In affirming the trial court’s finding of disability arising from the March 20, 1984 accident, the majority opinion sets forth the jurisprudential rule of law that the uncon-tradicted testimony of a witness, even though the witness is a party, should be accepted as true in the absence of circumstances in the record casting suspicion on the reliability of the testimony. The majority opinion finds that there is no evidence to contradict Sykes’ testimony that he sustained a work-related injury to his back on March 20, 1984. However, the majority opinion fails to address the many specific inconsistencies in the record that cast serious doubt on the reliability of Mr. Sykes’ testimony regarding the March 1984 accident.
The record establishes that there were no witnesses to the March 1984 accident and that plaintiff did not inform his immediate supervisor of the incident or file an accident report. Furthermore, plaintiff did not relate a history of any injury to his physicians when he sought medical treatment.
Although plaintiff did offer the testimony of a co-worker and station supervisor, Mr. Crowder, to corroborate his own testimony, Mr. Crowder’s testimony is not consistent with plaintiff’s testimony. Although Mr. Crowder testified that he was aware of the 1984 accident within two or
The majority opinion states that the medical treatments given to Sykes were given soon after the March 1984 accident. This statement is misleading because it fails to address the medical treatments that Sykes received before the March 1984 accident and it wrongfully implies that the medical treatment received by Sykes prior to the March 1984 accident is not at issue in this appeal.
The medical reports of the two physicians that examined Mr. Sykes between November of 1983 and July of 1985 contradict a finding that Mr. Sykes was injured during March of 1984. Mr. Sykes first sought medical treatment for the problem with his arm during November of 1983, when he was examined by Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin’s medical report indicates that Mr. Sykes complained that “his right arm had been going to sleep for about a week”. Mr. Sykes next sought medical treatment during April of 1984. He was again examined by Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin’s medical report indicates, “[h]e told me his hands were still going to sleep and he finally decided that he needed to get something done about it”.
Dr. Martin referred plaintiff to Dr. Turner, who examined plaintiff on May 3, 1984. Dr. Turner’s medical report indicates that plaintiff complained of pain in the neck, right shoulder and right arm which had been “going on for a year or longer.” Plaintiff also complained of chronic low back pain. Dr. Turner had treated Mr. Sykes for chronic low back pain during previous years. Dr. Turner diagnosed a chronic cervical syndrome with a possible protruded cervical disc and admitted plaintiff into the hospital where he received conservative therapy for a five day period.
Although the medical reports do establish that plaintiff suffered from pain in his back, neck, right shoulder and right arm after the alleged March 1984 accident, the medical records also indicate that plaintiff had experienced all of these symptoms pri- or to March of 1984. Furthermore, the medical reports do not establish any aggravation of Mr. Sykes’ symptoms subsequent to March of 1984. Also, the causation of Mr. Sykes’ symptoms is not addressed in the medical reports. In addition, the medical reports do not assign any percentage of disability resulting from Mr. Sykes’ medical condition.
Moreover, some of the statements made by Mr. and Mrs. Sykes also tend to negate Mr. Sykes’ claim that the March 1984 incident aggravated a previous injury. When defense counsel asked Mr. Sykes if he had expérienced problems with his arms before the March 20, 1984, incident, he responded, “Well, my arms had been giving me a little problem but not as near as considerable amount after the [sic], I did the work over at New Roads.” Plaintiff’s own testimony tends to establish that his problem with his arms became more severe after the 1983 incident in New Roads rather than after the alleged 1984 incident in St. Francisville. Plaintiff also acknowledged that he had seen Dr. Martin in November of 1983 due to the problems he was having with his arms.
Mrs. Sykes testified that Mr. Sykes complained of a stiff neck and numb arms after the March 1984 accident. However, she also testified that he did have the stiffness in the neck before the March 1984 incident.
The facts of the present case establish that plaintiff’s testimony regarding the al
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
. Plaintiff did not claim any damages resulting from the alleged 1983 job-related accident in this suit.