De Jean v. B. F. Trappey's Sons, Inc., 4308
| Decision Date | 05 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 4308,4308 |
| Parties | Mrs. Howard De JEAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. B. F. TRAPPEY'S SONS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe by L. Lane Roy, Lafayette, for defendants and appellants.
J. Minos Simon, Lafayette, for plaintiff and appellee.
Before FRUGE , SAVOY and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.
This is a suit by an employee, Mrs. Howard De Jean, for benefits due under the Workmen's Compensation Act as a result of injuries sustained while working in the canning factory of defendant, B. F. Trappey's Sons, Inc., which employer was insured for compensation protection by defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
On September 29, 1969, Mrs. De Jean was working as a seasonal employee in that portion of the canning plant where previously filled one gallon cans of sweet potatoes were labelled and boxed. Her duties included picking up these cans, weighing approximately 6 lbs. 8 oz., from a conveyor line and placing them into packing boxes . Other duties entailed stacking these filled boxes and mopping the floors. On the aforementioned date she received back injuries when she picked up two unlabelled cans at one time, in order to place them on the floor, so as to enable her to continue keeping up with the conveyor.
Mrs. De Jean endured in her work until pain from the injury forced her to see her family physician, Dr. William I. Smith, on October 2, 1969. Doctor Smith diagnosed the problem originally as a muscle strain but after repeated visits and a worsening of the condition changed his diagnosis to that of a probable herniated disc. After little relief, Mrs. De Jean was admitted to a hospital on the following October 13th, for strict bed rest and traction. Once released, her pain became worse, and Doctor Smith was of the opinion that plaintiff was completely disabled to work and therefore recommended her having an orthopaedic evaluation.
On October 30, 1969, plaintiff was examined by Dr. William Louis Meuleman, an orthopaedic surgeon, who readily diagnosed her condition as a 'clear cut' ruptured disc. Doctor Meuleman continued to treat plaintiff. Her clinical symptoms were so clear, that even without a myelographic study, the doctor performed surgery on November 24, 1971. As expected, an invertebral disc rupture was revealed and surgical repair was attempted. Plaintiff received post operative care from Doctor Meuleman until August 24, 1972. She has not returned to her former employment and, in addition, according to trial testimony, is unable to do her former usual household duties.
Defendants paid workmen's compensation from the date of the accident through June 14, 1972, at which time benefits were terminated.
As a result plaintiff filed suit on August 10, 1972, seeking a resumption of compensation payments, penalties, and attorney fees. Defendants filed an answer generally denying all of plaintiff's allegations, except for the work connected injury, and taking the position that it had no further obligation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
After trial on the merits the district court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, finding that she had suffered total and permanent disability to her back as a result of the accident. She was awarded compensation under the schedule at the rate of $41.60 per week, not to exceed 500 weeks, plus medical expenses, with the usual provision for interest and costs. In addition, the district judge assessed statutory penalties and attorney fees in the sum of $2,500.00 against defendants for their arbitrary and capricious discontinuance of benefits, as provided for in the penalty sections of the act.
From this judgment the defendants, employer and insurer, have taken a suspensive, and alternatively devolutive appeal, contending only that the trial court erred in awarding penalties and attorney fees.
The only question before this court on appeal is whether defendants' actions in discontinuing benefits were arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause under LSA-R.S. 23:1201.2 and 22:658.
An employer's conduct in discontinuing workmen's compensation payments must be judged primarily upon the facts existing and known to him at the time payments were stopped. These facts must justify discontinuance. Lee v. Smith, 248 La. 16, 176 So.2d 413 (1965).
Defendants emphatically deny that their actions were arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause in discontinuing benefits on June 14, 1972. However, no evidence was offered to support this position and no effort was made at the trial to explain the abrupt stoppage of all compensation benefits. The record does not reflect any legal excuse for defendants' termination of compensation.
In defendants' brief and at oral argument reference is made to the existence of a June 1972 letter from Doctor Meuleman to defendant insurer indicating that plaintiff was discharged with a 15% Disability but...
To continue reading
Request your trial