Jones v. Hunsicker
| Decision Date | 02 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | 34498 |
| Citation | 177 So. 576,188 La. 468 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | JONES v. HUNSICKER et al |
Rehearing Denied November 29, 1937
Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed, and judgment for plaintiff ordered.
Madison Madison & Fuller, of Monroe, for relator.
Theus Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for respondents.
OPINION
This is a suit by an employee against his employer and employer's surety under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 20 of 1914, and amendments) for compensation. Plaintiff alleged that while at work shortly after midnight on the morning of July 25, 1935, he was accidentally injured, and that as a result thereof was at the time he filed the suit, and would remain, totally unable to perform any work of a reasonable character. He was being paid at the time $ 22.40 per week. He prayed for judgment awarding him weekly compensation in the sum of $ 14.56, which is 65 per cent. of his wages, for 400 weeks, and $ 100 for medical expenses.
Defendant denied liability on the ground that plaintiff was not injured as alleged. There was judgment in the district court in favor of plaintiff for compensation at the rate of $ 7.28 per week for 300 weeks, and the amount claimed for medical expenses. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit (177 So. 262), where the judgment was reversed and plaintiff's demands rejected in toto.
On application made by plaintiff, we ordered the case up, because, according to a statement of the facts made by the Court of Appeal, it clearly appears that the court erred as a matter of law in rejecting plaintiff's demands in toto.
The court found as a fact that early in the morning of July 25 plaintiff was injured to some extent while at his work, and that on the same day he consulted Dr. Jones, a physician, complaining that he had been injured; that Dr. Jones treated him by strapping his back; that on the following day about 10 o'clock plaintiff, complying with instructions given him by defendant's timekeeper, went to the office of Dr. Garnier, defendant's physician, and that Dr. Garnier treated him until August 8, and on that date discharged him, saying that he was then able to go back to work.
It therefore does not matter, as touching the point presently under discussion, whether plaintiff was or is permanently disabled as a result of his injury, the facts being that while at work he was accidentally injured and that as a result of such injury he was under the treatment of physicians for exactly 14 days -- July 25 to August 8. Therefore, according to the court's findings, plaintiff was unquestionably disabled for at least 2 weeks.
Paragraph 4, subsec. 2 (K), § 8, Act No. 20 of 1914, as finally amended by Act No. 242 of 1928 (page 357), provides that "No compensation shall be paid for the first week after the injury is received"; unless disability from the injury continues for 6 weeks or longer after the accident, in which event compensation shall be paid for the first week.
So that, if it be conceded that plaintiff was not disabled by the accident for as long a period as 6 weeks, he nevertheless is entitled to compensation for at least one week according to the statute and the court's own findings.
The original Compensation Act, which is No. 20 of 1914, provided in section 8 that "No compensation shall be paid for the first two weeks after injury." (Italics ours.) Section 8 of that act has been amended seven times (Act No. 243 of 1916, Act No. 38 of 1918, Act No. 247 of 1920, Act No. 43 of 1922, Act No. 216 of 1924, Act No. 85 of 1926, and Act No. 242 of 1928), and in each of the amending acts it is provided that "No compensation shall be paid for the first week after the injury is received." The Court of Appeal probably overlooked the change made in the amending acts.
The judgment under review will have to be reversed and the plaintiff awarded compensation for at least one week, if for no longer period. He should have judgment also for his medical expenses.
Having granted the writ, we have followed our custom of reviewing the case as a whole in order to ascertain what judgment, in our opinion, should be rendered. We have read all the testimony, and, after doing so, our conclusion is that plaintiff was not partially or totally disabled as a result of the injuries which he received, except during the first two weeks while he was under the treatment of physicians.
That plaintiff was slightly injured while at work is proved beyond question. He, with seven others, was engaged in cleaning a joint of iron piping 18 inches in diameter and 90 feet long, and while doing this work it became necessary to turn the joint of pipe over. In doing this, plaintiff's right hand was caught between the pipe and the ground. To extricate the hand he, with the help of the other workers, lifted the pipe, and in doing so strained the muscles of his back. He worked for a few minutes longer and quit. Early in the morning he and several laborers were carried to Bastrop on a truck provided by the employer. After reaching Bastrop, he went to see Dr. Jones, a local physician. Dr. Jones' report shows that he examined plaintiff and "found him suffering from injured muscles of the back." On the following day plaintiff, at the suggestion of defendant's timekeeper, went to Dr. Garnier, who diagnosed plaintiff's injury as "lumbar strains." Dr. Garnier testified that he "strapped it with adhesive tape" and discharged him as able to work on August 8. The doctor said the "lumbar area of the back" is the "lower back from the pelvis to the ribs," or what is generally referred to as the "small" of the back. He made a urinalysis, found neither blood nor pus, and said plaintiff made no complaint to him of pain in the region of the kidneys.
The testimony shows that Dr. Garnier discharged plaintiff as being well and able to work on August 8, on which date or possibly a day or two later plaintiff requested him to issue a certificate to that effect in order that he might obtain work at the paper mill. The doctor refused to issue such a certificate, and counsel for plaintiff argue that his refusal shows that the doctor knew that plaintiff was not well. The doctor was asked on cross-examination why he refused to issue a certificate if, as a matter of fact, plaintiff had fully recovered. He first refused to divulge his reason, but later said his reason was that plaintiff had told Miss Sawyer, a nurse in his clinic, that "he knew the job was going to play out in a few days and he might as well get it out of the insurance company."
The facts are that on or about August 10, which was 2 days after Dr. Garnier had discharged him as cured, plaintiff went to work for the Emergency Relief Administration, a governmental agency then engaged in grading and leveling a plot of ground for the School Board. Plaintiff says he told the foreman that he had recently hurt his back and asked for light work. The work assigned him was the setting and the driving of stakes, which involved "stooping and squatting." Peters, the foreman, said no complaint was made to him about the way Jones did his work, and that plai...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gales v. Gold Bond Bldg. Products, Div. of Nat. Gypsum Co.
...Van Lines, Inc., 158 So.2d 609 (La.1963); Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., 229 La. 651, 86 So.2d 522 (La.1956); Jones v. Hunsicker, 188 La. 468, 177 So. 576 (La.1937). It is an emerging general principle of our workers' compensation law that, where succeeding employments contribute to disab......
-
Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co.
...accident but that other parts of his right hand were so injured as to produce the disability to perform manual labor. Jones v. Hunsicker et al., 188 La. 468, 177 So. 576. There testimony in the record, particularly in Dr. Sheppard's, that this condition would continue for a period of one ye......
-
Strickland v. W. HORACE WILLIAMS COMPANY
...duty to construe the statute and the testimony liberally in favor of the appellant and give him the benefit of any doubt. Jones v. Hunsicker, 188 La. 468, 177 So. 576. The trial court, in fixing the measure of the award, did not err. The judgment Affirmed. DAWKINS, District Judge, dissents.......
-
Green v. Heard Motor Co., 41220
...So. 677; Jones v. Powell Lumber Co., 156 La. 767, 101 So. 135; Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303; Jones v. Hunsicker, 188 La. 468, 177 So. 576; Archibald v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation, 202 La. 89, 11 So.2d 492; and Dyer v. Rapides Lumber Co., 154 La. 1091, ......