Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation

• Decision Date: 08 May 1922
• Docket Number: 24841
• Citation: 151 La. 800,92 So. 341
• Parties: DANIELS v. SHREVEPORT PRODUCING & REFINING CORPORATION
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

92 So. 341

151 La. 800

DANIELS v. SHREVEPORT PRODUCING & REFINING CORPORATION

No. 24841

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 8, 1922

Rehearing Denied by Division C, June 5, 1922

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J. F Stephens, Jr., Judge.

Action under the Employers' Liability Act by Dewitt H. Daniels against the Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation for compensation for injuries. Compensation was awarded, and the employer appeals.

Amended and affirmed.

J. S Atkinson and Alex F. Smith, both of Shreveport, for appellant.

Julius T. Long and Huey P. Long, both of Shreveport, for appellee.

O'NIELL, J. DAWKINS, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON, Justices.

OPINION

O'NIELL, J.

Defendant has appealed from a judgment allowing plaintiff compensation under the Employers' Liability Act. The court allowed $ 11.25 a week for 256 weeks commencing on the 21st of May, 1921. Answering the appeal, plaintiff prays that the allowance be increased to $ 16 a week for 355 weeks commencing on that date.

Appellant contends that the suit should have been dismissed on a plea of prematurity, which was filed in the district court. The complaint, in that respect, was that defendant had paid regularly the maximum allowance, $ 16 a week, when the suit was filed, and had paid for doctors' bills and for a surgical operation more than the law allowed plaintiff. Defendant contends that there was no dispute about the obligation, and therefore no occasion for a lawsuit. There was a dispute, however, in that defendant would not admit liability for a definite amount of compensation or for a definite period, or admit that the injury or disability was within any particular class, under section 8 of the Act 38 of 1918, p. 49, which governs this case. According to section 17 of the statute, if the parties had agreed upon a settlement, the agreement would not have had effect without the approval of the court. Appellant has no cause to complain of the weekly compensation allowed, because it is less than appellant was paying and willing to continue to pay, without admitting liability for any definite period.

The evidence shows, and it is not disputed, that the injury complained of has produced permanent though only partial disability. Plaintiff's right arm was fractured above the elbow; and, when reset -- for it had to be set a second time -- a serious deformity resulted. The arm is permanently bent, is three inches shorter than the other arm, and is permanently weakened. The injury is therefore within the class defined in subsection (c) of section 8 of the statute, viz.:

"For injury producing partial disability to do work of any reasonable character, fifty-five per centum of difference between wages at the time of the injury and wages which the injured employee is able to earn thereafter during the period of disability, not, however, beyond three hundred weeks."

The estimate of the loss of wage-earning capacity, $ 11.25 per week, is correct, according to the evidence. There is therefore no merit in appellee's demand for...