 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cousin v. Slidell Memorial Hospital9/26/2003
BR>
In the instant case, the OWC judge found that Cousin's testimony regarding the occurrence of the accidence was not credible and that he failed to prove that an accident occurred. In his reasons for judgment, the OWC judge noted that Cousin had multiple opportunities the night of the alleged accident to describe how he had been injured, but he did not do so, and thus he failed to provide sufficient corroboration as to the alleged accident. Therefore, we must review the record to see whether the OWC judge was manifestly erroneous in finding that Cousin had not satisfied the elements of Bruno and thus failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a work-related accident.
The OWC judge was not manifestly erroneous in finding that the second prong of Bruno, which requires that Cousin's testimony be corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged event, was not satisfied. Cousin spoke with at least four different people at Slidell Memorial after his accident occurred - nurse Olivo, nurse Boles, Dr. Archie Tatford, and supervisor Gilbert Rhodes - but none testified that they were told about the stripping machine and the pop in his neck. Although Cousin argues that he did in fact tell nurse Olivo, nurse Boles, and Dr. Tatford about operating the stripping machine and feeling a pop in his neck, this is contradicted by Olivo's and Boles' testimony and by Dr. Tatford's report. The first mention in the record of the pop in Cousin's neck is on August 24, 2001 in Dr. Culasso's records. With the conflicting testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding the alleged accident, the OWC judge made a credibility call and discredited Cousin's version of the events.
An OWC judge's determinations as to whether a claimant's testimony is credible, and whether the claimant has discharged his burden of proof, are factual determinations, which will not be disturbed on review absent manifest error. Bruno, 593 So.2d at 361. After a thorough review of the record, we are unable to find manifest error in the findings of the OWC judge. Cousin provided no credible evidence to corroborate his testimony. There are two permissible views of the evidence in this case: (1) Cousin told the truth and there was an accident, or (2) Cousin did not tell the truth and there was no accident. The OWC judge chose the latter and did not commit manifest error in so doing.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the August 5, 2002 judgment dismissing Cousin's claim with prejudice is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are cast to Cousin.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|