Coats v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1996
• Citation: 681 So.2d 1243
• Parties: 95-2670 La
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 1243

681 So.2d 1243

95-2670 La. 10/25/96

Billy W. COATS v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

No. 95-C-2670.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 25, 1996.

Gordon Neal Blackman, Jr., Blackman & Blackman, Shreveport, for Applicant.

Robert A. Dunkelman, Blanchard, Walker, O'Quin & Roberts, Shreveport, for Respondent.

[95-2670 La. 1] VICTORY, Justice. ^*

We granted certiorari in this case to review the court of appeal's determination that the claimant (1) did not suffer an "accident" as defined in the worker's compensation statute and (2) failed to prove that she was disabled such that recovery under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1 pertaining to occupational disease was precluded. For reasons more fully discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1972, Mrs. Billy W. Coats ("Mrs. Coats") began her employment with AT & T and continued until a mass plant layoff on April 19, 1991. Mrs. Coats' first job consisted of working on a conveyer using an air-powered screwdriver to assemble telephones. As early as March 1972, Mrs. Coats began complaining of pain in her right wrist. She continued to operate the air-powered screwdriver until 1982 when AT & T placed her on work restrictions to accommodate her complaints. [95-2670 La. 2] At that time, Mrs. Coats was also referred by AT & T to Dr. Winston Brown, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Brown conducted a nerve conduction velocity test and an electromyography ("EMG") test. While the EMG results were normal, the nerve conduction velocity test was mildly suggestive of carpal tunnel syndrome. As a result of Dr. Brown's report, additional work restrictions were placed on Mrs. Coats.

On March 8, 1991, just ten days before receiving formal notice of her upcoming layoff, Mrs. Coats complained to the AT & T medical department of pain in her right wrist. She was referred to another neurosurgeon, Dr. Robert Schwendimen, Dr. Brown's partner, for repeat nerve conduction studies. Once again, the EMG was normal. The nerve conduction velocity studies showed normal motor latency and, as in 1982, a somewhat prolonged distal latency in the right medium nerve. In fact, Dr. James Hill, AT & T's expert who testified at trial, stated in his report that Dr. Schwendimen's 1991 tests indicated "improvement with respect to the previous study of 1982."

Later, at the behest of AT & T, Mrs. Coats was referred to Dr. Michael Haynie, an orthopedic surgeon. According to Dr. Haynie, Mrs. Coats' condition was not consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome, but instead suggested she had a ganglion. Not satisfied with Dr. Haynie's diagnosis, Mrs. Coats' husband suggested she see another neurosurgeon, Dr. W.S. Bundrick. Dr. Bundrick's report corroborated Dr. Haynie's opinion that Mrs. Coats appeared to have a ganglion, but also stated that Mrs. Coats had "an element of carpal tunnel syndrome" and that he was referring her to Dr. Jorge Martinez, another neurosurgeon, for further tests. [95-2670 La. 3] Dr. Martinez indicated in his report that from a neurological point of view, Mrs. Coats did not have any evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome.

After her layoff on April 19, 1991, Mrs. Coats began receiving layoff benefits under the collective bargaining agreement between AT & T and the workers' union. When those benefits terminated in January of 1992, Mrs. Coats filed the present suit. ² Out of an abundance of caution, AT & T began paying Mrs. Coats worker's compensation benefits after the termination of her layoff benefits. ³

At the completion of trial, the Worker's Compensation Hearing Officer awarded Mrs. Coats Temporary Total Disability Benefits ("TTDB") from April 20, 1991 through January 5, 1992, the time period Mrs. Coats was being paid layoff benefits. The hearing officer also ordered AT & T to provide Mrs. Coats with 26 weeks of vocational rehabilitation and additional TTDBs for this period. Finally, after determining that AT & T was arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause in its refusal to pay benefits, the hearing officer awarded Mrs. Coats penalties and attorney fees in the amount of $9,075.00 and cast AT & T with all legal interest and costs. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Mrs. Coats did not prove she suffered an accident. Furthermore, the court of appeal determined that [95-2670 La. 4] Mrs. Coats failed to alleged occupational disease as a basis of recovery. We granted Mrs. Coats' writ to review this ruling.

DISCUSSION

It is well settled that Louisiana courts should interpret worker's compensation laws liberally in order to afford coverage. Harold v. La Belle Maison Apartments, 94-0889 (La. 10/17/94), 643 So.2d 752; Allen v. City of Shreveport, 93-2928 (La. 5/23/94), 637 So.2d 123. However, despite such liberal construction, the worker's burden of proving personal injury by accident is not relaxed and must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. LSA-R.S. 23:1031; Nelson v. Roadway Express, Inc., 588 So.2d 350 (La.1991).

Accident is defined in LSA-R.S. 23:1021(1) as:

[A]n unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.

The court of appeal found that the hearing officer was manifestly erroneous in determining that Mrs. Coats had suffered an accident. Mrs. Coats contends that the court of appeal erred by substituting its judgment for that of the hearing officer.

The only evidence offered at trial to prove the existence of an accident was Mrs. Coats' testimony. As this Court stated in Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La.1992), a worker's testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge his burden of proving that an accident occurred, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker's version of the incident; and (2) the worker's testimony is corroborated by [95-2670 La. 5] the circumstances following the alleged incident. Therefore, if the worker testifies that she suffered an accident, a court must then look to see if the Bruno elements are satisfied.

Here, Mrs. Coats failed to testify as to the occurrence of a precipitous event. The entirety of her testimony leads to the conclusion that the alleged "accident" she suffered was simply a continuation of discomfort in her right wrist she had been having for many years. Her testimony reads as follows:

Q. You reported to AT & T's medical department on March 8th, 1991, complaining of problems with your hands?

A. Yes, that I was still being bothered with.

Q. When you say that you were still being bothered with it, it would be a fair statement, wouldn't it, to say that the problems you had had since 1982 had continued to bother you all the way up till [sic] 1991 when you were laid off?

A. Yes.

* * * * * *

Q. Was there any event that happened to you in March of 1991 that made the problems in your wrist worse at that particular time?

A. No, because they never stopped. It would always swell. I'm right handed and I have to use my right hand.

Q. Okay. So the problems that you had in 1991 were essentially the same type of problems you had had from '82 forward?

A. Yes.

As Mrs. Coats' testimony clearly shows, she did not suffer "a precipitous event happening suddenly or violently" as the statute requires. ⁴ The court of appeal was correct in finding that the hearing officer was manifestly erroneous in [95-2670 La. 6] determining Mrs. Coats had suffered an accident as defined in LSA-R.S. 23:1021(1).

Mrs. Coats also cites as an assignment of error that the court of appeal incorrectly decided that she failed to plead occupational disease and was thus precluded from recovering on that basis. Although the court of appeal did state that Mrs. Coats failed to brief or plead occupational disease, it did not deny her benefits under LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1 on that basis. Instead the court of appeal stated:

The medical evidence, as well as Ms. Coats' own testimony, showed that she was capable of working under the same work restrictions AT & T had accommodated her with for many years. For this reason, though it was never briefed or pled by the claimant, we find that LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1, which provides relief for occupational disease, is inapplicable. (emphasis added).

To the extent the court of appeal's opinion is read to deny benefits because Mrs. Coats failed to brief or plead occupational disease, we disagree. ⁵ [95-2670 La. 7] However, the court of appeal was correct when it determined that Mrs. Coats should not recover worker's compensation benefits under an occupational disease theory. Occupational disease is defined in LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1(B) as follows:

An occupational disease means only that disease or illness which is due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the particular trade, occupation, process, or employment in which the employee is exposed to such disease. Occupational disease shall include injuries due to work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis arthritis of any type, mental illness, and heart-related or perivascular disease are specifically excluded from the classification of an occupational disease for the purpose of this Section.

In examining the merits of an occupational disease claim, the threshold question is whether or not the claimant has sustained an occupational disease resulting from causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to his particular trade, occupation, process, or employment. LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1; Peck v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., 586 So.2d 714 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991). Proof of such a causal connection need not be shown to an absolute certainty. It is sufficient that the claimant establish the cause of his disability by a reasonable probability. ⁶ However,...