 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sandidge v. Sandidge12/28/2001
This is an appeal of a decision by the Office of Workers' Compensation Administration (OWC) granting a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim for death benefits.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
Kenneth Sandidge, Sr. (Mr. Sandidge) worked on a farm owned by his son, Kenneth Sandidge, Jr. In April 1992, Mr. Sandidge suffered injuries to his left foot and lower back in the course and scope of his employment. Mr. Sandidge underwent surgery to his lower back, and as a result of his injuries, was declared totally and permanently disabled by his son's workers' compensation insurer, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company.
After sustaining his injuries in 1992, Mr. Sandidge had increased difficulty walking and had to use a walker or cane to ambulate. According to the stipulation entered into by the parties, both Mr. Sandidge's wife and daughter observed him falling on numerous occasions after his April 1992 accident. Following two of these falls, Mr. Sandidge sustained injuries that required further medical treatment. The workers' compensation insurer covered the treatment for both of these injuries, because these injuries were related to his lingering problems associated with his 1992 accident.
On the morning of May 10, 1997, Mrs. Sandidge found her husband on the floor of his bedroom. Mr. Sandidge was taken to Baton Rouge General Medical Center for treatment. Mr. Sandidge was diagnosed with a large ischemic stroke. As a result of this stroke, Mr. Sandidge died on May 24, 1997.
Following Mr. Sandidge's death, Mrs. Sandidge filed for death benefits under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act on May 12, 1998. Mrs. Sandidge contends that her husband's 1992 injury increased his likelihood of falling and that when he fell, his blood pressure rose and was a contributing condition to his stroke.
Kenneth Sandidge Jr. and The Travelers Insurance Company (defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the stroke suffered by Mr. Sandidge was not attributable to his 1992 workers' compensation accident or any complication from that accident. The OWC judge granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Mrs. Sandidge's claim for death benefits. Mrs. Sandidge appeals the decision of the OWC.
DISCUSSION
Following the 1997 amendment of the summary judgment law, summary judgments are now favored, and shall be used to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of all actions, except those excluded by LSA-C.C.P. art. 969. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966A(2); Smith v. Berteau, 98-1438, p. 3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/25/99), 739 So.2d 269, 272.
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria that govern the district court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. The motion should be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966B. Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality, whether or not a particular fact in dispute is material can be seen only in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. Smith, 739 So.2d at 272.
An employee in a workers' compensation action has the burden of establishing a causal link between the accident and the subsequent disabling condition. Peveto v. WHC Contractors, 630 So.2d 689, 691 (La. 1994). Where there is no causal relationship between the compensable injury and the subsequent event, the employer has no liability for compensation beyond the disability prod
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.
|
|