 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Sperandeo v. Sydran Food Services12/12/2001
ant disability are work-related. Bolden v. Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co., 363 So.2d 419 (La.1978); Stevens, supra.
The trial court found that plaintiff failed to rebut prescription. It is well settled that a hearing officer's findings are given great deference and will not be set aside by an appellate court absent a finding of "manifest error" or unless they are "clearly wrong." Brown v. Caddo Career Center, 28,111 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So.2d 712, writ denied, 96-1042 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 262, citing Rosell v. Esco, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989).
Here, plaintiff admitted that he knew his injury and its resultant disability were caused by the accident, at the latest by December of 1998, when he reported that his back injury was caused by the falling ceiling to his physical therapist.
Prescription can also be interrupted by the payment of wages in lieu of compensation when suit is filed within one year of such payments. Blanchard v. Tulane Medical Center, supra. Mr. Sperandeo's last paycheck was issued on January 20, 1999, and he received it on January 27, 1999, more than one year prior to the filing of the claim for workers' compensation.
The workers' compensation judge found that plaintiff's claim, filed on February 8, 2000, had prescribed. We find no manifest error in that conclusion. We therefore affirm the decision of the workers' compensation judge which granted defendant's exception of prescription.
AFFIRMED
|