Eaves v. Louisiana Cypress Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1969
• Docket Number: No. 49253,49253
• Citation: Eaves v. Louisiana Cypress Lumber Co., 253 La. 741, 219 So.2d 771 (La. 1969)
• Parties: Duelle D. EAVES v. LOUISIANA CYPRESS LUMBER COMPANY.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 771

219 So.2d 771

253 La. 741

Duelle D. EAVES v.LOUISIANA CYPRESS LUMBER COMPANY.

No. 49253.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1969.

Pierson & Pierson, Allen B. Pierson, Allen B. Pierson, Jr., Ponchatoula, for defendant-applicant.

Robert J. Mack, Sims & Mack, Hammond, for respondent.

HAMITER, Justice.

On September 3, 1964Duelle D. Eaves, the plaintiff herein, was accidentally struck in the face with a wrench while acting in the course and scope of his employment as a millwright with the Louisiana Cypress Lumber Company.

This suit against plaintiff's employer (filed on September 1, 1965), for workmen's compensation benefits allegedly due as the result of the accident, was dismissed by the district court.Plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, and it awarded plaintiff compensation at the rate of $35 per week for 100 weeks under the provisions of LRS 23:1221(4)(p), plus penalties and $1000 attorneys' fees.208 So.2d 380.We granted certiorari at the instance of defendant.252 La. 180, 210 So.2d 57.

Initially, plaintiff claimed maximum benefits for total, permanent disability to perform at his regular occupation ($35 per week for 400 weeks).However, in answers to interrogatories (filed on August 31, 1966)he indicated that perhaps his suit had for its purpose the recovery also of benefits for 'disfigurement'.But no amendment was made to the pleadings.

During the course of the trial it appeared that plaintiff was in no way 'disabled', as that term is used in the compensation statute; and that whatever claim he might have would be for impairment of the usefulness of a physical function due to the loss of teeth--this, incidentally, was the basis of the Court of Appeal's award.

At this point we mention that the defendant urges that it was improper for the Court of Appeal to have considered the evidence relating to the claim based on loss of the usefulness of a physical function (it was objected to) because the allegations and the prayer were not sufficient to sustain such a demand.We find no merit in this assertion.LRS 23:1317 declares that in compensation suits 'The court shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence or procedure * * *.'

We do not believe that it would be useful to set forth here all of the allegations of the petition.Suffice it to say that, in our opinion, the factual allegations concerning plaintiff's injury were adequate, under such liberalized procedure, to permit the court to allow plaintiff to introduce evidence to sustain a claim for the impairment of the usefulness of a physical function.

Most of the pertinent facts are undisputed.The employment and the accident were admitted.Immediately after the occurrence of the mishap plaintiff was sent by his employer to a physician who referred him to a dentist.The latter found it necessary to remove, as a result of the injury, nine of plaintiff's front teeth (four lower and five upper).

At that time plaintiff was suffering with a severe periodontal disease, involving loss of bone; and he had previously lost fourteen teeth.Because of the generally poor condition of plaintiff's mouth it was deemed expedient by the dentist to remove the remaining teeth, which had not been affected by the blow, and to fit him with a full set of dentures rather than partial bridges.Plaintiff agreed to this procedure, as did the employer, and it was effected.

The defendant promptly paid for all medical and dental expenses incurred; and it permitted plaintiff to leave work, without any wage deduction, to meet whatever dental appointments were necessary to carry on his treatments.

Other than during his initial visit to the physician, and his trips thereafter to the dentist, plaintiff has lost no time from work as the result of the injury.He returned to his former employment with defendant and continued there until he voluntarily left in April of 1966 for a better paying job.

The defendant concedes that the loss of a tooth or teeth might in some cases give rise to a proper claim for compensation benefits under the provisions of LRS 23:1221(4)(p).However, it denied that any such claim exists here for the reason that plaintiff's teeth were in such poor condition when the accident occurred that they then 'no longer performed the function of teeth'; and that, therefore, their removal could not be considered as resulting in the loss of the usefulness of a physical function.

Conceding, arguendo, the existence of facts as described by defendant could be the basis for denying compensation, we do not find that the record establishes such a factual situation.True, plaintiff did have a periodontal condition, as testified to by the treating dentist, which might have resulted ultimately in premature loss of the teeth at an indeterminate time in the future.Nevertheless, it was not definitely shown that the condition was not subject to treatment to avoid the loss.

Nor was there any evidence to show that the teeth were in an unusable condition.To the contrary, plaintiff's testimony is that they were perfectly usable; and that of the doctor supports him to the extent that he observed that the condition of the teeth would not cause any pain.Consequently, we hold, as did the Court of Appeal, that the plaintiff did suffer the loss of the usefulness of a physical function as a...