 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manuel v. Northrop-Grumman9/29/2004
Northrop-Grumman (Northrop) appeals a judgment awarding its employee, Jack Manuel, workers' compensation benefits in connection with Mr. Manuel's mental/mental claim. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Specifically, Mr. Manuel filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits as well as penalties and attorney fees for " ental stress from senseless harranguing to sign off on time worked that wasn't accurate." Northrop disputed the claim and never paid any indemnity or medical benefits. Following a hearing on the merits, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) awarded Mr. Manuel temporary total disability benefits and medical benefits but declined to award penalties and attorney fees.
In support of the judgment, the WCJ gave the following reasons in part:
In this case, the claimant testified and [Jack] Abbott, the manager at Northrop Grumman. The claimant's undisputed evidence is that he was approached several days about time sheets which had been changed, apparently by his supervisor. This supervisor had been reprimanded for the changes that were made to the time sheet; and while the initial incident occurred in April or May, the straw that broke the camel's back, I suppose, occurred in January of 2003. The employer representative, Mr. Abbott, surprisingly didn't have a lot of information to provide to the court. However, Mr. Abbott went so far as to call the claimant in to tell him that Human Resources would be taking a look at this issue of the time sheet change but that he shouldn't get excited, and I think the Human Resources person that was to talk with the claimant was Mr. Jay Bradford. . . .
The claimant testified that he had several meetings with Mr. Bradford and disputably has with Mr. Abbott wherein there were several discussions about this time sheet incident and that claimant was somehow ordered or directed to approve the time sheets. The claimant indicated he was told to either approve or disapprove and he said -- he simply did not agree with the time sheets.
The claimant was ultimately hospitalized on January 29, 2003. The claimant said that his problems began on January 20, 2003, when Mr. Abbott took him into his office, sat him down and told him he needed to approve the documents. The claimant went to the nurse who took his blood pressure and it was high. He ultimately went over to Memorial Hospital. The claimant testified he feared he was about to lose his job .
While the court believes the case . . . was blown grossly out of proportion, it does not change the fact that there is medical evidence to show that he had a psychological effect. The activities had a psychological effect on the claimant and, therefore, the court finds that this was a sudden, unexpected, or extraordinary stress for a period of days that escalated to claimant's reaction on January 29, where he had to be . . . taken to the hospital. As a result, the court finds that the claimant has proven by clear and convincing evidence that he suffered mental/mental injury .
(Emphasis added.)
Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1021(7)(b) provides:
Mental injury or illness resulting from work-related stress shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this Chapter, unless the mental injury was the result of a sudden, unexpected, and extraordinary stress related to the employment and is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.
The record supports that Mr. Manuel did suffer a mental injury as a result of the job stress at issue. However, in Partin v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 01-1560, p. 12 (La. 3/11/02),
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|