Perry v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1943
• Docket Number: 6628.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: PERRY v. LOUISIANA CENTRAL LUMBER CO. ET AL.

16 So.2d 136

PERRY v. LOUISIANA CENTRAL LUMBER CO. ET AL.

No. 6628.

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

December 2, 1943

Gahagan & Pierson, of Natchitoches, for plaintiff.

Gist Thornton & Murchison, of Alexandria, for defendants.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a compensation suit in which plaintiff seeks to recover total and permanent disability for injuries sustained in the course of his employment.

Plaintiff while working for defendant, Louisiana Central Lumber Company, as a log cutter, was pinned under a falling log and sustained serious injuries. Plaintiff's left leg was broken just above the ankle, and the right leg was broken just below the knee. Due to failure to obtain proper apposition of the bones of the right leg, in first setting the same after the injury, it was necessary to perform another operation upon the right leg, in the course of which the bones were rebroken and reset. The accident occurred on September 8, 1941, and compensation was paid up to date of November 2, 1942. On trial of the case no medical testimony was offered on behalf of plaintiff, with the exception of a stipulation entered into by and between the attorneys for plaintiff and defendants. In the stipulation it was admitted that Dr. W. H. Pierson of Natchitoches examined plaintiff on December 1, 1942, and if he were present in Court he would testify: "That on the date of his examination he found Perry's right leg one (1) inch shorter than the left with a lateral bowing. That the right leg was swollen all along from the fracture line down. That he found in his opinion a permanent loss of twenty-five percent of the function of the right leg and that it is the opinion of Dr. Pierson that in this condition Perry would not be able, physically, to cut logs or to do similar hard manual labor."

As opposed to the conclusions reached by Dr. Pierson, defendant presents four medical experts, Drs. J. Q. Graves, E. L. Carroll, Fred H. Mecom and P. K. Rand, who were agreed that plaintiff's injuries were no longer disabling in effect, and that the full use of the legs might be restored by following a program of exercise. It was admitted by all of these doctors that exercise of the legs would entail a certain amount of pain which they characterized as the price that must be paid in the course of regaining normal function of the legs. They were unable to fix with absolute certainty the period during which the pain and discomfort...