Nellon v. Harkins
| Decision Date | 13 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 9069,9069 |
| Parties | James NELLON, Jr. v. Robert M. HARKINS, etc., et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Roy Maughan, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
William H. Cooper, Jr. (Franklin, Moore, Beychok & Cooper), Baton Rouge, for appellees.
Before LANDRY, TUCKER and CUTRER, JJ.
From an adverse judgment denying him workmen's compensation for total and permanent disability, plaintiff perfected an appeal to this court. We affirm.
The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff, James Nellon, Jr., was employed as a delivery man and general handyman for Bob Harkins Florist. On February 3, 1971, while on a lunch break in his employer's truck, his foot became entangled in the accelerator as he was pulling away from a grocery store, causing him to lose control of the truck and strike an unoccupied parked car. The plaintiff immediately reported the accident to the city police who made an investigation.
It is this accident and the injuries which allegedly arose therefrom which are the subject of the controversy here.
The police officer who investigated the accident testified that the plaintiff told him that he was not injured. Plaintiff admits this is true, and the trial judge so found this to be the fact.
The plaintiff did not seek medical aid until March 23, 1971, some 49 days after the accident. At that time the plaintiff, on his own volition, went to see a Dr. James E. Williams, a general practitioner. Dr. Williams testified that plaintiff complained to him of back trouble, giving a history of having had this problem off and on for the previous year. When asked if he had been informed that plaintiff had been involved in an automobile accident this physician stated quite definitely that the plaintiff had made no mention of any accident.
Dr. Williams, when questioned as to his custom and method of taking a patient's history, testified that he wrote the patient's medical history as the patient related it to him. When questioned by the court on this subject the doctor was emphatic about this and we quote:
'Q Let me ask you this: Do you write your comments at the time you talk to the patient?
A Yes, sir.
Q At the time you are talking to your patients?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words this history is written by you at the tiem the patient narrates and describes what his problem is.
A Yes, sir, the record is complete before he leaves the examining room.' (Tr. 62)
Dr. Williams saw plaintiff three times. He stated that he saw him on March 23 and 30, 1971, but the testimony is not clear as to the last time he saw plaintiff (Tr. 60), but we deem the date as unimportant. Dr. Williams had X-rays made, but could not make any specific diagnosis. His testimony was that the X-rays were normal. He gave plaintiff some muscle relaxants and medication for pain.
The testimony of Dr. Williams was the only medical testimony offered in this case by either side. By agreement of counsel, plaintiff did introduce the medical reports of four other doctors. These are summarized as follows.
On April 23, 1971, plaintiff was seen by a Dr. U.S. Hargrove, a urologist. When questioned about this visit, plaintiff testified that he consulted Dr. Hargrove because his office was immediately behind the florist shop, and because he thought his trouble might be his kidneys. Plaintiff did not give Dr. Hargrove any history of an automobile accident. We quote from Dr. Hargrove's report:
'He did not relate any specific incident as initiating the trouble .'
Dr. Hargrove diagnosed plaintiff's trouble as orthopedic and prescribed muscle relaxants and pain relievers.
The plaintiff next saw a Dr. J. Willard Dowell, an orthopedic surgeon, on April 30, 1971, a on a referral from Dr. Hargrove. The plaintiff did give Dr. Dowell a history as having been involved in an automobile accident, however, Dr. Dowell commented in his report that, 'He (the plaintiff) gives a rather poor history but says that he didn't see a doctor until March.'
Dr. Dowell's findings were as follows:
The plaintiff was next seen by a Dr. Alan C. Farries, an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Farries report gives a history of the plaintiff's having been involved in an automobile accident. His medical findings were essentially the same as Dr. Dowell's.
The plaintiff was last seen by Dr. William L. Fisher, Jr., who on June 3, 1971, operated on plaintiff for what was diagnosed as a protruded lumbar intervertebral disc. There is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayfield v. City of New Orleans
...v. E. A. Caldwell Contractors, Inc., La.App., 276 So.2d 762 (1973); Richard v. Guillot, La.App., 271 So.2d 719 (1972); Nellon v. Harkins, La.App., 269 So.2d 542 (1972)." A review of the record in its entirety fails to establish that the plaintiff carried the requisite burden in establishing......
-
Gremillion v. Babst Services, Inc.
... ... E. A. Caldwell Contractors, Inc., La.App., 276 So.2d 762 (1973); Richard v. Guillot, La.App., 271 So.2d 719 (1972); Nellon v. Harkins, La.App., 269 So.2d 542 (1972)." (Emphasis ours.) ... Our reading of Prim v. City of Shreveport, supra, in combination ... ...
-
Gorbach v. Prager, Inc.
... ... E. A. Caldwell Contractors, Inc., La.App., 276 So.2d 762 (1973); Richard v. Guillot, La.App., 271 So.2d 719 (1972); Nellon v. Harkins, La.App., 269 So.2d 542 (1972).' ... Plaintiff asserts that, during the course of his employment, he was required to lift ... ...
-
LeLeux v. Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co.
...v. E. A. Caldwell Contractors, Inc., La.App., 276 So.2d 762 (1973); Richard v. Guillot, La.App., 271 So.2d 719 (1972); Nellon v. Harkins, La.App., 269 So.2d 542 (1972).' It is necessary only that the death or disability be precipitated by the usual actions, exertions, and conditions of the ......