Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 47662,47662 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edna HEBERT v. YOUR FOOD PROCESSING & WAREHOUSE, INC. |
Wilfred H. Boudreaux of Dodd, Hirsch, Barker & Meunier, New Orleans, for plaintiff-relator.
A. R. Christovich, Jr., Christovich & Kearney, New Orleans, for defendant-respondent.
A writ of review was granted, 247 La. 491, 172 So.2d 295, on application of plaintiff, and the case is now before this court for consideration of a judgment of the Court of Appeal which reversed a judgment of the trial court awarding plaintiff workmen's compensation benefits for total and permanent disability, subject to credit for compensation previously paid. See 170 So.2d 765.
Plaintiff, who was employed as an onion grader in the defendant's plant, was required to stand beside a conveyor belt and grade and sack onions into 12-ounce containers. While so employed she fell, and for the resultant injuries she was paid compensation until April 17, 1962, a period of more than six months. When these payments were discontinued, she instituted this suit.
Her claim for compensation for total and permanent disability is based on her contention that as a result of the fall she suffered a cervical sprain, which is shown to be a stretching or partial tearing of ligaments of the neck, and that because of this sprain she is unable to perform the work she was doing before her injury without appreciable and substantial pain.
We are in full accord with the well settled principles of law which the Court of Appeal set forth as applicable to this case, that is: That an employee is considered disabled within the meaning of the compensation act when he cannot perform the ordinary, usual, and normal duties of his occupation, trade, or calling without experiencing substantial pain, and that 'whether injuries received by an employee render him disabled within the purview of the rule which declares disability when the employee can work only in pain is a question of fact to be determined in the light of each individual case'; that in a compensation case the plaintiff has the burden of proving his claim with legal certainty by a preponderance of the evidence, and that 'Speculation, mere possibility, conjecture and even unsupported probability are not sufficient to support a judgment for workmen's compensation benefits'.
Relator contends first that the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of law 'in holding that relator's failure or refusal to increase her activities left to conjecture the question of whether or not a return to her previous employment would be accompanied by substantial pain and she had, therefore, failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayfield v. City of New Orleans
...or leaves it to speculation or conjecture. Jordan v. Travelers, 257 La. 995, 245 So.2d 151 (1971); Herbert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc., 248 La. 197, 177 So.2d 286 (1965); Hogan v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 210 La. 362, 27 So.2d 131 (1946); White v. E. A. Caldwell Contractors, Inc., ......
-
Hull v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...unsupported probability of a claim, is not sufficient to support a judgment for compensation benefits. Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc., 248 La. 197, 177 So.2d 286. Neither do I find any support in the record for the apparent alternative majority view that the certificate, t......
-
Long v. Manville Forest Products Corp.
...351 (La.App. 2d Cir.1984); Lucas v. Insurance Company of North America, 342 So.2d 591 (La.1977); Hebert v. Your Food Processing and Warehouse, Inc., 248 La. 197, 177 So.2d 286 (1965). Hence, disposition of this case via summary judgment was For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed i......
-
Bustillo v. Boudreaux & Dane Const. Co.
... ... Gulf States Utilities Company, Inc., 174 La. 401, 141 So. 9, the Supreme Court ... 2 LSA-R.S. 23:1221(2) ... 3 See also Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, 248 La. 197, ... ...