Laurendine v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1981
• Docket Number: No. 11896,11896
• Citation: 398 So.2d 1220
• Parties: Mr. John H. LAURENDINE v. FISCHBACH & MOORE, INC. and ABC Insurance Company.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1220

398 So.2d 1220

Mr. John H. LAURENDINE v. FISCHBACH & MOORE, INC. and ABC Insurance Company.

No. 11896.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

May 5, 1981.

James L. Donovan, Donovan & Lawler, Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thomas M. Nosewicz, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, John L. Hantel, Duke, Porterie & Hantel, New Orleans, for Fischbach & Moore, Inc., defendant-appellee.

Before BOUTALL, CHEHARDY and STOULIG, JJ.

BOUTALL, Judge.

This appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit with prejudice for the recovery of workman's compensation benefits from the defendant.

The plaintiff, John Laurendine, was employed by the defendant Fischbach & Moore, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as F & M) as an electrician for a period of three years beginning in 1973 through 1975. In the course of his employment, the plaintiff was required to work around asbestos. On May 16, 1979, Laurendine discovered by way of medical analysis that he had a chronic obstructive lung disease possibly due to asbestos exposure. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit against his former employer F & M and its insurer seeking the recovery of workman's compensation benefits claiming that he was permanently and totally disabled or in the alternative that he was permanently partially disabled. In response thereto, F & M filed an exception of prescription and a third party demand seeking indemnity or in the alternative contribution from all of the plaintiff's previous employers dating back to 1943.

Upon trial of this matter, the lower court entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff thereby dismissing the plaintiff's claim with prejudice. From this judgment the plaintiff has taken a devolutive appeal.

On appeal the issue presented for our consideration is whether Laurendine has carried his burden of proof in establishing that he contracted asbestosis, an occupational disease listed in former R.S. 23:1031.1 prior to the 1975 amendment redefining an occupational disease, as a result of his employment with F & M entitling him to workman's compensation benefits from it.

The plaintiff in a workman's compensation action based on occupational disease must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a disability which is related to the employment related disease. LaCoste v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 250 La. 43, 193 So.2d 779 (La.1967). Similarly, the plaintiff must show that he contracted the disease during the course of his employment and that the disease was the result of the nature of the work performed. Bates v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 266 So.2d 556 (La.App.3d Cir. 1972). It is sufficient that he establish the cause of his disability by a reasonable probability. Bryant v. Magnolia Garment Co., Inc., 307 So.2d 395 (La.App.2d Cir. 1975).

A review of the plaintiff's employment record reveals that he began working as an electrician in the U.S. Navy during WWII. At that time he was exposed to asbestos while aboard ship. The record further indicates that the plaintiff worked in the occupation of an electrician for the next 30 years. All during this period of time he was exposed to asbestos at the various construction sites to which he was assigned. In 1973 he was employed by F & M and remained there until 1975. During this time he worked at several different sites including the nuclear power plant at Taft, La., the Market Street powerhouse, a Federal building and J. C. Penney Co., Inc. While working at the first of these construction sites, the plaintiff worked as a stress reliever for four months. In doing so he was constantly exposed to asbestos fibers which accumulated on his clothing. Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to work as an electrician and was subject to asbestos exposure until 1979 when he stopped working because of medical complaints of exertional dyspnea or shortness of breath.

The plaintiff was examined by two different pulmonary disease specialists in 1979. Both doctors had different findings. Dr. Hans Weill found that the plaintiff did not have pulmonary fibrosis or scarring on the lungs and therefore there was no evidence of asbestosis. However, he did find that the plaintiff suffered from...