Hoy v. Gilbert

• Decision Date: 02 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-C-1565.,98-C-1565.
• Citation: 754 So.2d 207
• Parties: Robert HOY v. Slade GILBERT d/b/a S.G. Masonry.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

754 So.2d 207

Robert HOY v. Slade GILBERT d/b/a S.G. Masonry.

No. 98-C-1565.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 1999.

Rehearing Denied January 7, 2000.

Donald J. Anzelmo, Monroe, for applicant.

Curtis D. Street, Monroe, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.¹

We granted certiorari in this worker's compensation case to determine whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the hearing officer's judgment finding that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment at the time he was injured. After reviewing the record, we conclude the court of appeal did so err, and therefore reverse that judgment and reinstate the hearing officer's judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Claimant, Robert Hoy, was employed as a bricklayer helper by Slade Gilbert d/b/a S.G. Masonry ("Gilbert"), a masonry contractor. On April 13, 1996, claimant, along with his supervisor, Lonnie Brown, and another helper, Jimmy Howard, left a jobsite early² and returned to Gilbert's home north of West Monroe. During the drive, both claimant and Brown drank beer. Once they reached his house, Gilbert asked the crew to take a flat tire from a work trailer to a nearby service station to be repaired.³ The three men left with the tire in Brown's personal vehicle.

Approximately one hour later, but before reaching the service station, the men were involved in an accident when Brown's truck flipped over several times and landed in a ditch. According to claimant, Brown was driving approximately 30 m.p.h.⁴ the time of the accident, and the accident occurred when Brown swerved to avoid a dog in the road. However, Jeff Terrell, an off-duty detective of the West Monroe Police Department, witnessed the accident and later testified the vehicle was traveling "very fast" (he estimated 50 m.p.h.) around a curve. He stated he did not see a dog in or near the roadway. Additionally, he testified that after the accident, one or both of the passengers were throwing beer bottles out of the truck into the woods. The investigating officer, Deputy Randy Evans of the Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office, testified that no one mentioned anything to him about a dog causing the accident. Deputy Evans stated that claimant seemed intoxicated and smelled of alcohol, but that no field sobriety test was conducted because claimant was not the driver of the truck.⁵

Scott Lee DeBoard, another of Gilbert's employees, picked up claimant and Howard from the hospital following the accident. He stated that both men told him that the accident occurred as they were on their way home, when Brown "was chasing someone that owed him some money where he could beat him up." DeBoard stated that claimant and Howard told him nothing about a dog in the roadway.

Subsequently, claimant sought worker's compensation benefits from Gilbert, asserting he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. Gilbert denied the claim, contending the accident occurred during a deviation from the employment mission.

A hearing was conducted on the disputed claim before a hearing officer of the Office of Worker's Compensation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer rendered judgment in Gilbert's favor. The hearing officer reasoned that although claimant may have been in the course and scope of employment prior to the accident, he and the other members of the work crew riding in the truck had deviated from the employment mission at the time the accident occurred.

Claimant appealed this ruling. A five-judge panel of the court of appeal, with one judge dissenting, reversed the hearing officer's ruling and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of claimant for twelve weeks of temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses.⁶

Upon Gilbert's application, we granted certiorari to consider the correctness of this ruling.⁷

DISCUSSION

A worker's compensation claimant bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he has received "personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." La.R.S. 23:1031(A); Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La. 1992). The courts have consistently held that an employee is protected during work hours, despite minor deviations from instructions or place of work, if what he does could reasonably be contemplated as humanly incidental to his service as an employee and does not unreasonably increase the risk of injury. Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc., 481 So.2d 592 (La.1986).

The hearing officer's determination as to whether the claimant's testimony is sufficient to discharge the burden of proof constitutes a factual determination. Consequently, the resolution of this issue will not be disturbed on review absent manifest error. We will set aside the hearing officer's factual finding only if the record demonstrates that there was no reasonable basis for this factual finding and that this finding is clearly wrong. Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 9...