Prim v. City of Shreveport

• Decision Date: 01 July 1974
• Docket Number: No. 54411,54411
• Citation: 297 So.2d 421
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: C. C. PRIM v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT.

Page 421

297 So.2d 421

C. C. PRIM v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT.

No. 54411.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1974.

Donald R. Miller, Shreveport, for plaintiff-applicant.

Richard H. Switzer, Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley, Shreveport, for defendant-respondent.

SANDERS, Chief Justice.

This is an action to recover compensation for total and permanent disability under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act. LSA-R.S. 23:1201--23:1351.

The district court rendered judgment in favor of the employer, City of Shreveport, and Aetna Life and Casualty Co., its insurer, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 287 So.2d 593 (1973).

We granted writs to consider whether the stroke that the plaintiff suffered was a compensable disability under the statute. 290 So.2d 897 (1974).

Plaintiff C. C. Prim, was working as a laborer for the City of Shreveport at the Cross Lake water plant. On September 24, 1971, while helping to dock a small boat, he slipped on a rock and hurt his left leg. The injury was minor. He administered first aid to his leg on the job and continued to work. Two weeks later, on October 5, 1971, while cleaning filters, he contends that the leg hurt to such an extent he asked his supervisor to take him to a physician. He was taken to the office of Drs. Eddy and Garrett and was seen by Dr. James H. Eddy, who was not called to testify at the trial. The following day plaintiff saw Dr. Broox Garrett, who diagnosed plaintiff's condition as a stroke, with paralysis in his left leg and a drawing of his mouth on the left side. Dr. Garrett testified that the plaintiff's stroke was a result of either a blood clot or a rupture of a blood vessel, caused by his abnormally high blood pressure. Dr. Garrett found his blood pressure on October 6th to be 258/100.

Concededly, plaintiff is totally and permanently disabled. In order to recover benefits under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Law, however, the employee must establish that he received a 'personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.' Disability is compensable only if it results from a work-related accident. LSA-R.S. 23:1031; Ferguson v. HDE, Inc., La., 270 So.2d 867 (1972).

Plaintiff asserts that the injury to his leg or other activities of his employment caused or contributed to the disability.

The defendant contends that there was no causal connection between the plaintiff's disabling stroke and any work-related accident. Rather, it is the defendant's position that the stroke arose from high blood pressure, an abnormal condition unrelated to his work.

Hence, the question presented is factual: Is plaintiff's disability causally related to an employment accident?

Although procedural rules are construed liberally in favor of workmen's compensation claimants, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is not relaxed. Thus, the testimony as a whole must show that more probably than not an employment accident occurred and that it had a causal relation to the disability. If the testimony leaves the probabilities equally balanced, the plaintiff has failed to carry the burden of persuasion. Likewise, the plaintiff's case must fail if the evidence shows only a possibility of a causative accident or leaves it to speculation or conjecture. Jordan v. Travelers, 257 La. 995, 245 So.2d 151 (1971); Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc., 248 La. 197, 177 So.2d 286 (1965); Hogan v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 210 La. 362, 27 So.2d 131 (1946); White 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).

Dr. Garrett was the sole medical witness. He testified that the injury to the lower left leg could not have passed a blood clot to the brain. Rather, such a clot would have gone into the lungs and caused a blockage there. Dr. Garrett testified that hypertension was the most likely cause of the plaintiff's cerebral vascular stroke. He added, however, that plaintiff's hypertension, was a condition of...