 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kennedy v. Brookshire Grocery Co.12/7/2001
Plaintiff, Evelyn Kennedy, appeals the trial court's judgment denying her workers' compensation claim on the basis of prescription. For the reasons cited herein, we affirm.
FACTS
Evelyn Kennedy ("Kennedy") was employed as a meat wrapper in the meat department of the Farmerville Brookshire Grocery Store. On or about July 27, 1995, she injured herself while lifting a forty pound box of chicken. The accident was unwitnessed, and it was not reported until March 11, 1999, ten days after Kennedy was terminated. Incidentally, Kennedy also suffered an injury in 1990 for which she was compensated until January 1991. In August of 1995, Kennedy began receiving short term disability benefits ("STDB") rather than workers' compensation benefits. She opted to pursue STDBs after speaking with Brookshire's comptroller, Randy Modesitt, who recommended STDBs after being told by Kennedy that the nature of her injuries stemmed from the 1990 injury for which she had already received workers' compensation. Following her termination, Kennedy applied for workers' compensation benefits. Brookshire denied that an accident occurred in 1995 and claimed that any claim for workers' compensation prescribed one year after the alleged accident. Brookshire classified the payments Kennedy received as "sick pay."
The trial court found that Kennedy had not met her burden of proving that her injuries were caused by a work related accident. Additionally, the court found that even if her injuries were caused by a work related accident, prescription had run on the workers compensation claim and for any claim for payment of medical expenses. In its finding, the court rejected Kennedy's argument that she was lulled into a false sense of security that her workers' compensation claim was suspended while she received short term disability payments.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
Factual findings in workers' compensation cases are subject to the manifest error/clearly wrong standard of review. Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698 (La. 01/14/94), 630 So.2d 706; Nolan v. Rawls Farming Co., 35,086 (La. App. 2d Cir. 10/31/01), 2001 WL 1335667, ___ So.2d ___. In applying this standard, the appellate court must determine not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993). If the factfinder's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840 (La. 07/01/97), 696 So.2d 551.
Burden of Proof
Whether a claimant has carried his burden of proof and whether his testimony is credible are questions of fact to be determined by the WCJ. Harris v. Coushatta Indus. Sand, Inc., 31,977 (La. App. 2d Cir. 06/16/99), 741 So.2d 143. A worker's pre-existing condition does not bar his recovery under Louisiana Workers' Compensation law. Guillory v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co., 420 So.2d 119 (La. 1982); Harvey v. BE & K Construction, 30,825 (La. App. 2d Cir. 08/19/98), 716 So.2d 514. A claimant's burden of proof in establishing a causal relationship between a job related accident and a disability is by a preponderance of the evidence. Durham v. Plum Creek Manufacturing, 32,888 (La. App. 2d Cir. 05/10/00), 760 So.2d 564.
In determining whether the worker has discharged the burden of proof, the trier of fact should accept as true a witness's uncontradicted testimony, although the witness is a pa
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.
|
|