City of Eunice v. Credeur

• Decision Date: 13 October 1999
• Docket Number: No. 99-302.,99-302.
• Citation: 746 So.2d 146
• Parties: CITY OF EUNICE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rebecca CREDEUR, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 146

746 So.2d 146

CITY OF EUNICE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Rebecca CREDEUR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-302.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

October 13, 1999.

Writ Granted in part January 28, 2000.

Christopher R. Philipp, Lafayette, for City of Eunice.

Timmy J. Fontenot, Eunice, for Rebecca Credeur.

BEFORE: COOKS, SAUNDERS AND DECUIR, Judges.

SAUNDERS, Judge.

The issue on appeal is whether the administrative hearing officer was correct in concluding that Rebecca Credeur was not injured in the course and scope of her employment on November 20, 1990.Mrs. Credeur began receiving compensation benefits in January 1993.On February 26, 1997, the City of Eunice filed a dispute alleging that Mrs. Credeur was not entitled to disability benefits and medical treatment.Mrs. Credeur filed an answer and reconventional demand for benefits.

After a hearing, the administrative hearing officer concluded that Mrs. Credeur did not sustain an accident during employment, that the injuries for which she seeks compensation were pre-existing and that Mrs. Credeur should be denied workers' compensation benefits.

Our reading of the record and the applicable law convinces us that the administrative hearing officer was clearly wrong and we reverse.

FACTS

The City of Eunice(City) hired Rebecca Credeur(Credeur) in November 1984 to work in the sales tax department.During her early years with the City, Credeur was the only worker in her department.Due to the under-staffing, she put in long hours writing and working at a computer terminal to ensure the completion of work that entered the office.She sat for 4-6 hours without taking a break.

Between 1986 and 1990, Credeur began to experience health problems and was diagnosed with fibromyositis and chronic fatigue syndrome.Her treating physician, Dr. Charles Aswell, III, informed her that her problems were work-related.Additionally, Dr. Aswell informed her several times to take time off work.Credeur did not comply with the doctor's orders because she was the only worker in her department and realized her boss depended on her.

To maintain her workload and continue physical therapy for her condition, Credeur attended physical therapy during her lunch hour.By June 1990, Credeur had difficulty holding her head up for more than fifteen to twenty minutes.

During the course of treatment, Dr. Aswell informed Credeur that her injuries were work-related.In the summer of 1990, Credeur sought reimbursement of her work-related medical bills through workers' compensation.Credeur and the insurance representative contacted the proper person concerning the possible workers' compensation claim.Later, Credeur was informed that workers' compensation did not cover injuries caused by writing and sitting at the computer terminal for long periods.

Following her attempts to file a workers' compensation claim, Credeur's condition improved.In October 1990, Mrs. Credeur returned to work full-time.At that time, Dr. Aswell's medical notes stated that she had made an 80% improvement.

On November 20, 1990, Credeur was injured in a work-related accident.While at work, the back of her chair came off and she fell over.She fell backwards hitting her hip, lower back and head.Credeur filed an Employer's Report of Occupational Injury or Disease in which she described the accident.Despite her injury, Credeur continued to work for more than two years after the accident.In 1992 and following, five physicians diagnosed her with thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS).She was forced to undergo four operations to correct the condition.After the surgeries, she worked part-time until December 1996.In February 1997, the City terminated Credeur because her employment was endangering her and delaying recovery.

On February 26, 1997, the City filed suit asserting that Credeur was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits.The City paid medical compensation for seven years and benefits for four years, totaling $236,-839.32.Although her treating physician found her disabled due to a work-related injury, the administrative hearing officer found otherwise.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The Office of Workers' Compensation hearing officer's findings are subject to the same standard of review, manifest error, as are a trial court's finding.According to the standard, the reviewing court must determine whether the administrative hearing officer's conclusions were reasonable.Stobart vs. State, through DOTD,617 So.2d 880(La.1993).A strong presumption has been established in the jurisprudence, and an appellate court may not set aside an administrative hearing officer's finding of fact in the absence of manifest or clear error.Rosell v. ESCO,549 So.2d 840(La.1989) The State of Louisiana has recognized the Workers' Compensation Act as remedial in nature.To achieve the humane policies it reflects, the law is to be liberally construed in favor of the injured employee.Pinkins v. Cardinal Wholesale Supply, Inc.,619 So.2d 52(La.1993).Considering this policy and evidence in the record, the administrative hearing officer's conclusions were unreasonable and the findings were manifestly erroneous.

A.Was there anaccident on the job?

Credeur's first assignment of error is whether the administrative hearing officer erred in concluding there was no workrelated injury.In order for an employee to make a claim under the Workers' Compensation Act, the employee must show: (1) there was an accident on the job, and (2) the accident was "arising out of the course and scope of employment."La.R.S. 23:1031.The statutory definition of "accident" is an "unexpected or unforeseen event happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the same time objective symptoms of the injury."La.R.S. 23:1021(1).

The worker in a workers' compensation action has the burden of establishing a work-related accident by a preponderance of the evidence.A worker's testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker's version of the incident; (2) the worker's testimony is corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged incident.Bruno v. Harbert Intl, Inc.,593 So.2d 357(La.1992);West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc.,371 So.2d 1146(La.1979).Corroboration may be provided by medical evidence.West,371 So.2d at 1150;Thomas v. RPM Corp.,449 So.2d 18(La. App. 1 Cir.), writ denied,450 So.2d 965(La.1984).

The City failed to offer any evidence to discredit or cast serious doubt on the Credeur's version of the accident.The City only asserted that the accident was unwitnessed and that Credeur suffered from pre-existing illnesses.However, neither of these factors is sufficient to preclude a workers' compensation claim.

The City relied upon the testimony of Dr. Mark Valentine.Unlike the treating physician, Dr. Valentine has never examined the Credeur and was obtained only for the purposes of trial.Additionally, Dr. Valentine agrees that different symptoms appeared after the accident and that there is a difference between fibromyositis and TOS.Thus, his testimony was not sufficient to discredit or cast serious doubt on the Credeur's testimony.

In West,371 So.2d 1146, the employee injured her back in an unwitnessed accident.The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court's rulings that the employee failed to prove an accident by a preponderance of the evidence.The Louisiana Supreme Court stated that "the Defendant's uncontradicted testimony of the accident at work, corroborated by the doctors' testimony concerning medical observations and treatment was sufficient to prove the work-accident by a preponderance of the evidence."West,371 So.2d at 1150.

West sets forth several factors to use in analyzing an unwitnessed accident.Utilizing the West factors and the evidence presented, Credeur established there was a work-related accident by a preponderance of the evidence.

1.Defendant Provided Medical History to a Health Care Provider

In West,the plaintiff failed to promptly notify her treating physician of the work-related accident but was not denied workers' compensation benefits.In the case before us, Credeur failed to notify her treating physician immediately following the accident, but she did seek medical attention concerning the accident.On November 21, 1990, she visited Dr. Le-Jeune, a chiropractor, who treated her in 1987.She informed Dr. LeJeune of the accident.Thus, Credeur did report her accident to a health care provider shortly after the accident.There is no requirement under the Workers' Compensation Act that Credeur return to her previous physician upon suffering a new accident.

2.Notification/Accident Report

The employee in West was allowed to recover compensation, although she failed to promptly notify her employer of the injury.In the present case, Credeur immediately notified her employer of the accident and filed an accident report.On November 20, 1990, Credeur filed an Employer's Report of Occupational Injury or Disease, and in the report, she gave a detailed description of the accident.

3.Employee's Pre-existing Illness

In West,the supreme court rejected the lower court's reliance on pre-existing illnesses to preclude the employee from recovering benefits.The court stated that "even if there were a pre-existing latent back disability, nevertheless workers' compensation benefits are payable when a work-accident aggravates or accelerates it, producing disability."West,371 So.2d at 1149, citingJohnson v. Travelers Insurance Co.284 So.2d 888(La.1973).

In the case before us, Credeur had been under the care of various doctors for several years before the November 20, 1990, incident.However, the primary physician released Credeur in September 1990, and she worked the entire month of October.It is clear from the record that Credeur had...