Gilmore v. George W. Garig Transfer
| Decision Date | 30 December 1947 |
| Docket Number | 2942. |
| Citation | 33 So.2d 99 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | GILMORE v. GEORGE W. GARIG TRANSFER, Inc., et al. |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1948.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 22, 1948.
Brezeale Sachse & Wilson, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Brumfield Hebert & Push, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.
This is a suit by the plaintiff, Jack Gilmore, against his employer George W. Garig Transfer, Inc., and the latter's insurer American Mutual Liability Insurance Company for workman's compensation under Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended, for disability of Gilmore resulting from an injury to one of his feet suffered in an accident. At the time of the accident, June 8th, 1945, 65% of Gilmore's average weekly wage amounted to $19.50. The District Court rendered judgment in favor of Gilmore and against the defendants, appellants, George W. Garig Transfer, Inc. and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company for workman's compensation at the rate of $19.50 per week for a period not to exceed 400 weeks, less a credit of 36 weeks of compensation admittedly paid by the defendants beginning on the 8th day of June, 1945 with legal interest on each past due installment until paid, plus $20 for medical services rendered by Dr. E. J. Herpich. In its judgment the District Court also condemned the defendants to pay the costs, ordered that the fees of the medical experts Dr. Lawrence J. Kern, Dr. E. J. Herpich, Dr. Charles McVea and Dr. W. Shewen Slaughter be fixed at $20 each and taxed as costs, and that the fee of the plaintiff's attorneys, Messrs. Brumfield, Hebert & Rush be fixed at 20% of the amount recovered, not to exceed $1,000. From that judgment of the District Court the defendants prosecute this appeal.
While the District Court gave no written reasons for its judgment, its form and amount are appropriate to, and only to, a finding of total permanent disability. Act No. 20 of 1914, � 8(b), Act No. 120 of 1944 (the amending act in force at the time of the accident). So we assume that the District Court found that at the time of the trial Gilmore was permanently totally disabled, as a result of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, to do work of any reasonable character, and the plaintiff contends that such is the case. On the other hand, the defendants, appellants, contend that the plaintiff's disability is neither total nor permanent.
The only controversies in the case are over the extent of the plaintiff's disability and its duration or probable duration.
Section 8 of Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended by Act No. 120 of 1944, insofar as pertinent, reads:
* * *
* * *
'(b) For injury producing permanent total disability to do work of any reasonable character, sixty-five per centum of wages during the period of disability, not, however, beyond four hundred weeks.'
Let us first consider the extent of Gilmore's disability at the time of the trial in the District Court.
The term 'disability to do work of any reasonable character,' as used in Act No. 20 of 1914, both in its original and its amended forms, means disability to do the same character of work one was accustomed to and was performing at the time of his injury. Carlino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 196 La. 400, 199 So. 228, 232, 233; Ranatza v. Higgins Industries, 208 La. 198, 23 So.2d 45, 46; McKenzie v. Standard Motor Car Co., La.App., 15 So.2d 115, 117.
Prior to the accident the plaintiff was employed as a laborer. He testified that since the accident when he attempts to do the same kind of work he did before the accident he suffers so much pain that he cannot work.
His medical expert Dr. E. J. Kern testified that he was totally disabled.
Dr. E. J. Herpich, who also testified for the plaintiff, was of the opinion that the plaintiff had only a 20% disability. He said, however, that if he were examining the plaintiff for a prospective employer, he would recommend against his employment.
Dr. W. Shewen Slaughter and Dr. Charles McVea testified for the defendant.
Dr. Slaughter was of the opinion that the plaintiff was suffering from practically no disability.
Dr. McVea said that the plaintiff had a 25% disability. He based that on an opinion that the plaintiff can do the same kind of work he did before, but will suffer pain while doing it.
Such is the evidence on the question of extent of disability. In our opinion a preponderance of the evidence shows that the plaintiff cannot perform the kind of work he did before the accident without suffering considerable physical pain while doing it....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co.
...La.App., 24 So.2d 402; Richardson v. American Employers' Insurance Company et al., La.App., 31 So.2d 527; Gilmore v. George W. Garig Transfer, Inc., et al., La.App., 33 So.2d 99. A careful reading of the opinions in those cases will show that in almost all of them the respective claimants w......
-
Blanchard v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co.
...Inc., La.App., 24 So.2d 402; Richardson v. American Employers' Insurance Company, La.App., 31 So.2d 527; Gilmore v. George W. Garig Transfer, Inc., La.App. 33 So.2d 99. A careful reading of the opinions in those cases will show that in almost all of them the respective claimants were awarde......
-
Reeve v. Clement-Braswell Mach. & Fabricating Works
...59; Richardson v. American Emp. Ins. Company, La.App.1947, 31 So.2d 527; rehearing refused La.App., 32 So.2d 108; Gilmore v. George W. Garig Transfer, La.App.1948, 33 So.2d 99; Bailey v. Maryland Casualty Company, La.App.1948, 34 So.2d 354; Sutcliffe v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, La......
-
Nubles v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp.
...59; Richardson v. American Emp. Ins. Co., La.App.1947, 31 So.2d 527; rehearing refused La.App., 32 So.2d 108; Gilmore v. George W. Garig Transfer, La.App.1948, 33 So.2d 99; Bailey v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App.1948, 34 So.2d 354; Sutcliffe v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., La.App.1948, 3......