520 So. 2d 1259 | La. Ct. App. | 1988
Lead Opinion
This case is before us on a remand order
The facts of this worker’s compensation claim are clearly set forth in both the ma
After a reconsideration of the case we now adopt the concurring and dissenting opinion in Virgil v. Amer. Guarantee & Liability Ins., 512 So.2d 1235 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987) (Wicker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) as our majority opinion. Accordingly, following the earlier mandate of the Louisiana Supreme Court to review the record in light of the manifest error standard, Virgil v. Amer. Guarantee & Liability Ins., 507 So.2d 825 (La.1987), and finding no manifest error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
KLIEBERT, DUFRESNE and GOTHARD, JJ., concur.
. This is an opinion rendered after a second remand order from the Louisiana Supreme Court. Our first opinion is found at Virgil v. Amer. Guarantee & Liability Ins., 503 So.2d 45 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987). Thereafter, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its first remand order with instructions to examine the record in light of the manifest error standard in Virgil v. Amer. Guarantee & Liability Ins., 507 So.2d 825 (La. 1987). Accordingly, we rendered a second opinion in compliance with the order in Virgil v. Amer. Guarantee & Liability Ins., 512So.2d 1235 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987). Following our second opinion at 512 So.2d 1235, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted writs and ordered a second remand with instructions that the matter be heard before a panel of at least five judges in Virgil v. Amer. Guarantee & Liability Ins., 514 So.2d 1169 (La.1987).
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
I agree with the results reached by the majority, but not necessarily for the reasons stated in the majority writer’s dissenting opinion in Virgil v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins., 512 So.2d 1235 (5th Cir.1987) found at pages 1238-1245.
Here the trial judge made the factual finding that the plaintiff was injured and remained so for at least 100 weeks. The trial judge’s finding of fact is entitled great deference and should not be changed unless manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978). Accordingly, I concur in the trial judge’s opinion.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
For the reasons assigned by Judge Thomas J. Kliebert, I respectfully concur.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
For the reasons assigned by Judge Thomas J. Kliebert, I respectfully concur.