Lee v. International Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1944
• Docket Number: 6707.
• Citation: 16 So.2d 679
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: LEE v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.

16 So.2d 679

LEE v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.

No. 6707.

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

January 31, 1944

Rehearing Granted Feb. 14, 1944.

Madison Madison & Files, of Bastrop, and Dan W. Stewart, of Minden, for appellants.

Julius T. Long, of Shreveport, for appellee.

DREW Justice.

This is a suit under the Workmen's Compensation Act of this State No. 20 of 1914, as amended. Plaintiff, while in defendant's employ and in the course and scope of his employment, received an injury to his right arm in the following manner:

While plaintiff was manipulating an electric loader, his right arm was caught and pressed between said loader and a grass rope fracturing both bones of said lower arm and crushing them from about four inches from his wrist up the arm for a distance of approximately four inches. Defendant sent plaintiff to its local doctor who placed the arm in splints and treated him for five weeks. He was then sent to Dr. Durham, a bone specialist in Shreveport, Louisiana, who found it necessary to operate on the arm. The operation performed consumed from three to four hours' time and the bones were held together by metal plates and screws which went entirely through the bone and protruded into the flesh and tissues surrounding the bones. The arm was also placed in a plaster cast. The accident occurred on July 12, 1942 and both radius and ulna bones were broken. The plaster cast was removed from the arm in November, 1942.

Plaintiff was earning more than $40 per week at the time of the accident and was paid compensation for a period of seven weeks, or through August 30, 1942. A few days thereafter, plaintiff was given a job of training or teaching other employees whom defendant was breaking in for shipping clerks, and plaintiff was holding the job of shipping clerk at the time he was injured. He was paid the same salary or wage while training the other employees as he had received prior to the accidental injury, and held this job until about the middle of January, 1943 when he was given his old job as shipping clerk. Plaintiff did not work as regularly at this job as defendant thought he should and he was shifted to a job of sweeping the floors. Plaintiff held this last position for a few days and either quit or was discharged.

Plaintiff contends that he was often required to lay off because of the pain he suffered in his arm and that when he was put to sweeping the floors, the pain was so great he had to notify his employer of his inability to hold the job. There is no evidence in the record to disclose that defendant had any complaint about plaintiff's work prior to the injury to his arm. Plaintiff testified that the pain in his arm was continuous and that he was forced to lay off and not report for work because of the severe pain. After plaintiff ceased working for defendant, he tried to secure a job with the Louisiana Ordnance Plant, without success, and also tried to get a position with the Tri-State Bus Line, but was turned down on account of the condition of his arm. Plaintiff complains of pain in his arm, lack of grip in his right hand and lack of power to properly rotate his arm, and that any lick or blow on the arm which he might receive in using the arm in any work would cause it to swell and become extremely painful. It is shown that this happened once when he struck his arm against a car door in alighting from a car. Plaintiff contended below and here that his arm is in such condition as to render him totally incapacitated for any work of a reasonable character. It is defendant's contention that plaintiff's arm has healed and that he is not incapacitated because of the injuries and that this has been demonstrated by the work he performed for it after the injury.

The lower Court awarded judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $5 per week, beginning February 13, 1943, the date he ceased working for defendant, not to exceed 300 weeks from July 12, 1942, the date of injury, and fixed the fees of the expert witnesses. Both plaintiff and defendant have appealed, defendant praying that plaintiff's demands be rejected in toto and plaintiff praying that he have judgment for $20 per week not to exceed 400 weeks, less the seven weeks for which compensation was paid.

Defendant did not offer the testimony of either of its doctors who treated and operated on plaintiff's arm. Their testimony should have thrown much light on the case, especially the testimony of Dr. Durham, who operated and placed the plates and screws...