Norris v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 21 December 1927 |
Docket Number | 2986 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | NORRIS v. LOUISIANA CENTRAL LUMBER CO |
Rehearing Refused February 3, 1928.
Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish of Caldwell. Hon. F. E. Jones, Judge.
Action by William D. Norris against Louisiana Central Lumber Company.
There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
Judgment reversed.
Huey P Long; George T. McSween, of Shreveport, attorneys for plaintiff, appellee.
Thornton Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, attorneys for defendant appellant.
In this action for compensation under Act No. 20 of 1914 as amended, the plaintiff, W. D. Norris, alleged that he had been in the employ of defendant Louisiana Central Lumber Company, a corporation operating a saw-mill, receiving a weekly wage of approximately thirty-one and 50/100 dollars, and that on or about the 28th day of February, 1925 while cutting timber for the defendant he received a severe strain to his left abdominal wall, causing a rupture and hernia which permanently totally disabled him from doing any work of a reasonable character.
That prior to the accident plaintiff had sustained and was suffering from a hernia on his right side, and that the second hernia had totally disabled him.
And he further alleged that about two years prior to the accident he had received severe injuries to his right foot which had caused him some inconvenience in executing heavy tasks of labor, and that on the date of the accident causing the hernia, February 28th, 1925, his foot and ankle had been sprained and the injuries formerly sustained greatly aggravated.
That on or about the 30th day of April, 1925, he had been operated on for the hernia resulting from the accident on February 28th, 1925, but that the operation was not a success and that he still suffers from the hernia received on that date.
That the defendant had knowledge of the injury sustained by him and of the extent of same and paid him compensation up to November 1st, 1925, but had refused to pay him compensation since that date, and he prayed for judgment against defendant for compensation at the rate of twenty dollars per week for the period of his disability not to exceed four hundred weeks, the first payment to be due on March 7th, 1925, with legal interest on the payments from due date until paid, and he further prayed for judgment for two hundred and fifty dollars necessary medical expenses.
The defendant answered admitting that the plaintiff had been in its employ and that he claimed to have sustained a strain which caused a hernia on or about the latter part of February, 1925, but alleged that he had not complained of any other injury or aggravation of previous injuries and that it did not have any notice of other injuries.
That defendant had been operated upon for the hernia claimed to have resulted from an accident in February, 1925, and the operation was a success and plaintiff was entirely cured, and defendant alleged that plaintiff's wages had been four dollars per day or twenty-four dollars per week and that he had been paid compensation up to November 1st, 1925, although plaintiff's disability had ceased prior to that date.
On trial plaintiff supported his allegations by his testimony, but he was unable to fix with any degree of certainty the amount of wages he had received, and in an indefinite manner he stated that his foot and ankle had been sprained some two years before the strain resulting in the hernia had been sustained and that at about the time the strain was received his ankle had been injured, although he states that at the time of the alleged injury to his ankle he did not notice it, and plaintiff attributed his disability to the hernia or pain which he claimed to suffer in the region of the operation and to the injury to his ankle and to his having gained in weight, his testimony being in part as follows:
He admitted that all of the expenses of the operation for the hernia had been borne by the defendant, and did not claim that he had paid any medical or hospital fees, or that he desired to have further treatment.
The evidence offered on behalf of defendant tended to show that the plaintiff had not sustained a strain on February 28th 1925, but that the hernia...
To continue reading
Request your trial