Sepulvado v. Willamette Industries

• Decision Date: 12 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1074,83-1074
• Citation: Sepulvado v. Willamette Industries, 459 So.2d 1342 (La. App. 1984)
• Parties: Julius Griffin SEPULVADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Appellee. 459 So.2d 1342
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1342

459 So.2d 1342

Julius Griffin SEPULVADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 83-1074.

459 So.2d 1342

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Third Circuit.

Dec. 12, 1984.

William D. Dyess, Many, for plaintiff-appellant.

Brittain & Williams, Joe Payne Williams, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellee.

Before DOMENGEAUX, GUIDRY and KNOLL, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

This is a worker's compensation case.The plaintiff, Julius Griffin Sepulvado, seeks benefits for partial disability, statutory penalties, and attorney's fees.From a judgment denying his claims, the plaintiff appeals.

The issue on appeal is whether, under conflicting medical testimony, the plaintiff is entitled to payments for partial disability, statutory penalties, and attorney's fees.

FACTS

The plaintiff suffered an accident within the course and scope of his employment as a sawmill worker with Willamette Industries.Willamette paid compensation benefits from the date of the accident, March 23, 1983, until about May 3, 1983, and paid all medical and travel expenses for that period of time.

The plaintiff's job involved feeding sheets of grain plywood veneer into a drying machine.From time to time, several sheets would become stuck in the drying machine.The accident occurred as the plaintiff was attempting to free four such sheets of plywood.As the plaintiff stooped to twist loose the plywood, he injured his lower back.Treatment was initially rendered to the plaintiff at the Fraser Hospital in Many.

Subsequently, the employer referred the plaintiff to Dr. Robert E. Holladay, IV, a Shreveport orthopedic surgeon.On April 6, 1983, Doctor Holladay diagnosed the plaintiff's injury and complaints of pain as a mild ligamentous sprain of the lumbar spine, with an 85% range of normal motion.He also found a grade one congenital spondylolisthesis (i.e., slipped vertebrae) which he felt was unrelated to the lumbar sprain.He prescribed rest, medication, and a back brace.He examined the plaintiff again on April 18, 1983, at which time he noted that the sprain appeared to be healing, that there were no more back spasms, and that the plaintiff felt less discomfort.On May 2, 1983, he examined the plaintiff for a third time, noting that the sprain had apparently healed and that the plaintiff's lower back tested as normal.He recommended that the plaintiff return to his former job.Subsequent examinations on June 1st and June 13, 1983, showed the same result.Doctor Holladay observed on June 13th that, while the plaintiff complained of pain, results of the various tests performed on him were inconsistent; he concluded that the plaintiff was exaggerating his injury.

The plaintiff was referred by his own attorney to Dr. J. Lee Etheredge, an orthopedic surgeon, who examined the plaintiff on two occasions.On April 28, 1983, the plaintiff complained of leg and back pain, and tenderness in the lower lumbar spine area.Doctor Etheredge's test revealed the sprain of the lower lumbar spine and the grade one spondylolisthesis in the lower vertebrae, which he concluded was related to and had been aggravated by the sprain.He prescribed rest, medication, and exercise.On June 6, 1983, the plaintiff stated to the doctor that his pain was worse.Upon further testing of the plaintiff, Doctor Etheredge found limited motion and tenderness in the lower lumbar area.He concluded that the plaintiff should learn some type of new skill in order to perform lighter work.It was Doctor Etheredge's opinion that heavy work would only aggravate the congenital spondylolisthesis.It is noted, however, that the plaintiff apparently informed Doctor Etheredge that his job involved heavy lifting and that he had suffered this same injury previously.These statements were contradicted at the trial by the testimony of D.G. Rivers, the plant supervisor.Doctor Etheredge also acknowledged that Doctor Holladay, the treating physician, was in a better position to evaluate the plaintiff's condition, as he had seen and tested the plaintiff on more occasions.

The issue here is whether the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to further worker's compensation benefits.

The plaintiff-appellant argues that the trial court gave insufficient weight to the testimony of Doctor Etheredge.Doctor Etheredge did conclude that the plaintiff could no longer work at his former job, but these conclusions were apparently based upon information given to him by the plaintiff.Doctor Etheredge also testified that the plaintiff complained of pain as late as ...