Lathers v. Schuylkill Products Co.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 4788,4788 |
| Citation | 111 So.2d 530 |
| Parties | Eddie LATHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHUYLKILL PRODUCTS CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
H. Alva Brumfield, Robert Turner, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Tom F. Phillips, Baton Rouge, for appellee.
Before ELLIS, FRUGE and LANDRY, JJ.
This is a workmen's compensation proceeding wherein the plaintiff seeks compensation for alleged permanent and total disability arising out of his having contracted lead poisoning. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and the claimant has appealed.
The plaintiff bases his suit upon two grounds, namely:
I. That the episode of acute lead poisoning suffered by the plaintiff has made him more susceptible to lead poisoning and therefore it is unsafe for him to work around lead or around any product containing lead, and for this reason hw is permanently and totally disabled within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Statute, and,
II. That the plaintiff is suffering from a nervous disorder as a result of the lead poisoning which renders him totally and permanently disabled.
There is no dispute as to the plaintiff having suffered an acute lead poisoning and consequently his injuries are covered by LSA-Revised Statute 23:1031.1, which provides compensation for poisoning resulting from lead. The question presented is whether he has recovered from this disease and whether, if he is susceptible to such poisoning, he is totally and permanently disabled within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
In determining whether this plaintiff has been totally disabled from an industrial accident it is necessary to determine whether he was a skilled or common laborer. If a common laborer is injured and is thereby prevented from engaging in one or two, or even a few particular kinds of common labor, but is able to do other kinds of common labor, he is not totally disabled.
The plaintiff, before being employed by the defendant, worked for a long time as a porter and general handy-man at a department store. He then went to work for the defendant as a common laborer and was paid the lowest scale prevailing at the defendant's plant. Shortly before the incident of the lead exposure it was proven he was classified as a common laborer. The lead poisoning was suffered in the lead kettle room where the plaintiff worked as a 'lead skimmer'. The plaintiff contends this work was skilled in nature. However, although admitting the plaintiff did some lead skimming, it was shown he was a helper only and followed behind a skilled man rather than doing any skilled work himself. There is nothing in the record to show his duties were skilled and his wage increase of 8 cents per hour above his former wage scale of $1 per hour is not indicative of the fact that he had become a skilled laborer, for it was proven to have been given him due to seniority. After the plaintiff had contracted lead poisoning and recovered and his employment by the defendant terminated he worked for a printing company for about two and one-half months and for Louisiana State University as a common laborer for approximately six months. On another occasion he did yard work for a resident of Zachary, La. The plaintiff himself testified that he was able and willing to perform common labor but at the time of the trial he had been unable to obtain a job. This record proves the plaintiff to be a common laborer and not a skilled worker. Thus, if the injury he suffered precludes him from working around lead but does not substantially decrease his ability to compete in the general labor market he is not totally disabled.
In Jackson v. Steel Fabricators, La.App., 90 So.2d 397, 400 an employee was found to be no longer disabled from performing common labor work similar to that in which he had been previously engaged even though he had sustained 10 per cent permanent impairment of the use of an ankle. Both rehearing and Writ of Certiorari were denied. The Court, in reaching this conclusion, said:
'On the other hand, we have felt, and still feel,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaCoste v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
...v. Lone Star Cement Corporation, La.App., 55 So.2d 674; Anderson v. Rowan Drilling Co., La.App., 150 So.2d 828; Lathers v. Schuykill Products Co., La.App., 111 So.2d 530. Where, however, the employee is skilled or semi-skilled so that a change of industrial environment would necessarily pre......
-
Anderson v. Rowan Drilling Co.
...his trade of welding in any number of other places where he would not have to come in contact with cement.' In Lathers v. Schuylkill Products Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 111 So.2d 530, plaintiff was employed as a lead skimmer and while so employed he contracted a lead poisoning. He claimed compens......
-
Rachal v. Highlands Ins. Co., 6330
...Service District, 335 So.2d 81 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1976), application denied 338 So.2d 298 (La.1976); Lathers v. Schuylkill Products Company, 111 So.2d 530 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1959); Comment, 1975 Amendments to the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act, 36 La.L.Rev. 1018 Act 583 of the 1975 legi......
-
Ory v. Metal Bldg. Products Co.
...150 So.2d 828 (La.App.3d Cir. 1963).3 Gavin v. Gervais F. Favrot Co., 144 So.2d 723 (La.App.4th Cir. 1962); Lathers v. Schuylkill Products Co., 111 So.2d 530 (La.App.1st Cir. 1959).4 Federick v. National Surety Corporation, 149 So.2d 436 (La.App.3d Cir. 1963); Darden v. Henry E. Johnson, In......