Stockstill v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.

• Decision Date: 17 September 1962
• Docket Number: No. 790,790
• Citation: 144 So.2d 918
• Parties: Delos H. STOCKSTILL v. BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 918

144 So.2d 918

Delos H. STOCKSTILL v. BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION et al.

No. 790.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 17, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1962.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 27, 1962.

Frank S. Bruno, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Adams & Reese, Henry B. Alsobrook, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before TATE, CARRIERE, and BAILES, JJ.

TATE, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation suit. The claimant's employer and its insurer were held liable to the claimant for benefits for total and permanent disability. The defendant insurer was additionally held liable for penalties and attorneys fees for the arbitrary nonpayment of compensation due.

The defendants-appellants concede that the claimant Stockstill sustained a compression fracture of a spinal vertebra in an accident at work on February 12, 1960, and that he was disabled until May 25, 1960, through which date they paid compensation benefits. By their appeal, they urge, however, (1) that the claimant has not proved any residual disability beyond May 25, 1960 resulting from the accident of February 12th, and (2) that, in any event, the refusal to pay compensation beyond May 25th was not arbitrary and capricious so as to subject the insurer to penalties under LSA-R.S. 22:658 for arbitrary non-payment thereof.

The evidence shows that the attending physician initially discharged the claimant as able to go back to work on May 25, 1960. The claimant thereafter endeavored to and did return at his former occupation. Despite assignment to lighter duties than normal, he was unable to work without pain, and he was unable to perform the heavier duties of his occupation. He therefore reported back to his attending orthopedist, who found the claimant to be disabled because of a weakening of his back caused by the compression fracture and who recommended surgery.

The claimant's present total disability to perform the duties of his work is proved by the testimony of this orthopedist, who examined and treated the claimant many times over an extended period of time, and by the examinations of two other medical specialists, as well as by substantial lay testimony concerning the plaintiff's unsuccessful efforts to return to his regular work, as well as his excellent prior work-record. Like the trial court, we do not find to be impressive the only contrary testimony relied upon by the defendants-appellants, namely, the opinion of a neurosurgeon who saw the claimant briefly many months after suit was filed and who was of the opinion that the residual from the compression back fracture was not disabling, although this specialist frankly admitted that the treatment and diagnosis of compression fractures fell within the field of the orthopedists testifying rather than within his own field of neurosurgery.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence proves that the claimant is entitled to benefits for total and permanent disability. See e.g., Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Co., 233 La. 747, 98 So.2d 175; McGee v. Reimers-Schneider Co., Inc., La.App. 1 Cir., 102 So.2d 566; Bynum v. Maryland Cas. Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 102 So.2d 547.

It is additionally argued by able counsel for the defendants-appellants that, even conceding disability was proven at the trial, nevertheless the defendant insurer should not be subjected to penalties for the arbitrary and capricious non-payment of conpensation prior to suit.

Counsel first contends that the insurer was reasonably entitled to deny the demand for compensation and to litigate the plaintiff's claim because of its contention that 'the plaintiff had sustained an accident which re-aggravated his pre-existing injury while he was working for his new employer' (p. 10 of the appellants' brief), since the evidence showed that the pain in the claimant's back did not recur until he returned to work for another employer after May 25, 1960.

This contention was not raised until long after suit was filed. The (apparently uninvestigated) possibility that another accident may have occurred aggravating the previous work-caused latent disabling condition does not excuse the non-payment of compensation.

The record is bare of the slightest evidence that the plaintiff sustained another disabling accident while at work for a subsequent employer; indeed, the evidence shows that the medical reason that the claimant felt pain upon his return to work was simply because his back was no longer strong enough, because of the residual effects of the previous compression fracture, to perform the manual duties of his former employment. See Jackson v. Bruser, La.App. 1 Cir., 96 So.2d 850. Further, even if a disabling aggravation of the claimant's previous injury had occurred while at work for a second employer, the first employer is not relieved of a solidary liability...